I think you're right about the first sentence. I believe it made more
sentence in v0, where there was some context about defining actions. The
intent was to basically say that, when a binding entity creates an
action (either by explicit definition, or by describing its properties),
it "owns" that action, and nothing else can tamper with the binding
entity's description of it.
It's very possible that the wording does not fit the intent. Would
adding this wording (similar to some wording from v0) make it any better?
When a binding entity purports to explicitly define or to describe
the properties of an action, it defines an action that is distinct
from all other actions; the binding entity is said to "define" this
created action.
(feel free to bikeshed the use of the word "define", "own" might
actually work better here)
This has the side effect of ensuring that a contract cannot define the
natural language action of "breathing", it can only create a new action,
even if that action is "to breathe".
As for the second sentence, that might have become dead code in the
shrinkage, I'll double check and then strike it if it is.
Jason Cobb
On 6/28/19 1:30 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only
require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT
modify anything else about the action in any way.
I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell, we interpret the
Rules as defining something precisely when they talk about the
properties of the action, which I guess you could call "modifying".
E.g. R2465 permits Declaring Apathy and says it results in winning,
but doesn't say "Declaring Apathy is...".
So either modifying an action counts as defining the action, in which
case this paragraph doesn't do anything, or it doesn't, in which case
it's not clear at all that Declaring Apathy, initiating a CFJ,
resolving an Agoran decision, etc, could be permitted or limited by
the Rules.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
What does the above paragraph do? I don't see the definition used anywhere.
