Oh, I didn't even think of forbiddenness as being a property.
Attempt #3:
When a binding entity explicitly defines an action, describes the
possibility of performing an action, or describes the methods by
which an action can be performed, it creates an action that is
distinct from all other actions; the binding entity is said to "own"
this created action.
A binding entity CAN only state that it requires or forbids an
action that it does not own; it CANNOT modify any other properties
of the action.
[I switched "define" out for "own" just to reduce any confusion.]
First part is changed away from just describing any properties to the
specific descriptions listed.
I change the second clause to say that a binding entity can only "state"
that it requires/forbids, because in the last version I think it could
be construed as stating that it could require/forbid for _anyone_. I
think this different from "purports to" because if a binding entity has
the text "A party to the contract SHALL NOT breathe.", then the binding
entity states it forbids breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/28/19 1:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
There’s a slight problem with that wording. It doesn’t have to purport to
define or describe it, it just has to do so. Purporting to define or
describe something would be saying “I describe X”. Also, you’ve got to make
sure you phrase it in a way that allows entities to refer to actions
defined by other entities, e.g. a contract forbidding an action defined by
another entity (which would be describing its property of forbiddenness).
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:47 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
