On 6/26/2020 11:11 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:29 PM nch wrote: >> On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>> Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 >>> Author: Jason >>> Coauthors: Aris >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >> >> Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with >> G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system >> that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections >> offered by bodies of law? > > > The underlying premise of bodies of law is that it makes sense to have > rules, regulations, and probably also contracts follow the same basic > framework. This unification in processing was thought to be inherently > beneficial. It's something we have been discussing for a while.
I've protested a fair bit about language complexity, but I'm undecided on the framework overall. When Alexis first proposed I thought it was complicated, but also that all our arguments about things like R2125 had become a bit stale and maybe we should try out some whole new language. And from a judicial standpoint, trying to puzzle out what the new R2125 did for the first time yesterday *was* an interesting exercise. > That being said, if this adds complexity... Maybe we should reconsider the > whole project? Maybe these systems simply shouldn't be unified? One thought I had was to unify from a different angle. A lot of what I wanted when writing Auctions was simply a document control system, and regulations had a suitable one. E.g. "This is a fixed body of text with legal and controlled processes to change the contents, assigned to an officer to track, etc." So maybe we should "unify" underlying text control. In other words, say "a legal body of text (LBOD) is a document that can be changed by [some useful default methods]." Then we might make various texts (contract texts, proposal texts, regulations etc.) into LBODs [ok not a great name someone can think of something better]. That way we might simplify/reduce the mechanical text on how to change and track the various types of documents, and keep the actual legal effects of each document separate and written specifically for each purpose. > Jason, I know you've been working on this for quite a while. You've been > doing a lot of good stuff and the results are quite impressive. And I > honestly don't like suggesting that we not use so much good thoughtful > work. > > That being said, people's comments here have made me wonder whether this > entire affair was a good idea. Bodies of Law made the ruleset more > complicated. At the time I was concerned about the complexity but thought > the eventual uniformity that would result would make it all worth it. It's > starting to feel like maybe I should have listened to my gut and argued > against it. First-time drafts can often have a bit too much in them, especially if the language its trying to replace is old and has accumulated a lot of edge cases, which the drafter feels obligated to include so as not to open old scams/bugs. But the second draft could be a review of "which of this is *actually* needed right now. I think I'd try a round of clarifying before complete abandonment. -G.
