Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
I retract my objection, because a replacement seems fairly likely to be enacted. -Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I oppose this, and object. I'm obviously biased, because I wrote the > relevant system. If your problem with it is that it's over-complicated and > badly implemented, I'd agree with you. That has a tendency to happen with > any large game system I write. I get so buried in thinking about everything > that could happen that I tend to make the system I'm building more > complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't help, of course, that in Agora > everything has a large amount of committee work in its design. People have > a tendency to see even more problems that I didn't see, and fixing > everything and addressing everyone's concerns always seems to lead to more > bloat. So someone wants to reform and simplify this system, they have my > full support and assistance. I can even try to write something up myself, > if people enumerate the specific problems they have with the system, > although I'm not sure I'm really the right person for the job. > > That all being said, I cannot support a repeal (or at any rate one without > a replacement). Contracts need to be made simpler and more comfortable so > that people actually use them. I'd like to know what problems people have > with the current system, so that can be fixed. However, in deciding whether > to repeal this, you have to understand my motivation for writing it in the > first place. Contracts replaced a lot of dedicated systems for doing > different things. Specifically, they replaced Organizations, which were > even less usable, and Agencies, which only allowed acting on behalf. At the > time, there was a serious proposal to allow people to write standalone > backing documents. Contracts replaced all of that with one consolidated > flexible system, the purpose of which was basically to allow people to add > personal extensions to the ruleset. You can really do almost anything with > them. I thought when I wrote this system that we needed a capability to > allow people to create things for players without writing them into the > ruleset, and I still think so today. Now, for some reason that I still have > trouble understanding (I get that they're over complicated, but that > doesn't directly make them unusable) people don't seem to do that with them > much. However, I'm concerned about seeing a proliferation of subsystems > and/or a lack of flexibility after their repeal. For that reason, I think > that they should be reformed, not flat out repealed. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. >> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about >> anymore. So I'm making the following point. >> >> I create and intend to Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 >> objections the following proposal. >> >> Title: Getting rid of my own job >> AI: 3 >> Text: Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521 and 2527. >> From rule 2166 "Assets", delete the following text >> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its >> backing document is a contract." >> and delete the following text >> "or (d) contract" >> and delete the following text >> " A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is >> >> willing to receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a >> contract CANNOT be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the >> contract is silent on the matter, or if its willingness is >> indeterminate or the subject of a inextricable conditional, the >> procedure to determine its willingness is as follows: >> >> 1. If the contract appears to anticipate being given assets, >>other than for sustenance (e.g. by authorizing parties to >>spend the contract's assets), then the contract is willing to >>receive all assets. >> >> 2. Otherwise, it is unwilling to receive all assets. >> >> The previous paragraph (including the list) notwithstanding, a >> contract CAN be given 1 unit of Agora’s official currency a month >> for its sustenance payment, so long as it never has more than 1 >> unit of Agora’s official currency at a time." >> >> and delete the text >> " Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract >> CANNOT oblige a person who isn't a member to record its internal >> state, nor is the default recordkeepor responsible for tracking a >> contract's internal state." >> >> In rule 2425 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract" >> >> In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts" and >> delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and delete the last >> paragraph. >> >> In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and >> the last sentence. >> >> In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
If you have any interesting ideas for Contracts with me that are fun, I will do them while they still exist. In fact I create the following Contract (spending a coin) Title: Sillyness by contract Text: This Contract holds Coins. Anyone may become a party to this Contract, VJ Rada is a party to this Contract. Anyone may act on behalf of any party to this Contract to perform any action that is extremely silly and does not harm the party's standing in the game significantly. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I oppose this, and object. I'm obviously biased, because I wrote the > relevant system. If your problem with it is that it's over-complicated and > badly implemented, I'd agree with you. That has a tendency to happen with > any large game system I write. I get so buried in thinking about everything > that could happen that I tend to make the system I'm building more > complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't help, of course, that in Agora > everything has a large amount of committee work in its design. People have > a tendency to see even more problems that I didn't see, and fixing > everything and addressing everyone's concerns always seems to lead to more > bloat. So someone wants to reform and simplify this system, they have my > full support and assistance. I can even try to write something up myself, > if people enumerate the specific problems they have with the system, > although I'm not sure I'm really the right person for the job. > > That all being said, I cannot support a repeal (or at any rate one without > a replacement). Contracts need to be made simpler and more comfortable so > that people actually use them. I'd like to know what problems people have > with the current system, so that can be fixed. However, in deciding whether > to repeal this, you have to understand my motivation for writing it in the > first place. Contracts replaced a lot of dedicated systems for doing > different things. Specifically, they replaced Organizations, which were > even less usable, and Agencies, which only allowed acting on behalf. At the > time, there was a serious proposal to allow people to write standalone > backing documents. Contracts replaced all of that with one consolidated > flexible system, the purpose of which was basically to allow people to add > personal extensions to the ruleset. You can really do almost anything with > them. I thought when I wrote this system that we needed a capability to > allow people to create things for players without writing them into the > ruleset, and I still think so today. Now, for some reason that I still have > trouble understanding (I get that they're over complicated, but that > doesn't directly make them unusable) people don't seem to do that with them > much. However, I'm concerned about seeing a proliferation of subsystems > and/or a lack of flexibility after their repeal. For that reason, I think > that they should be reformed, not flat out repealed. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. >> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about >> anymore. So I'm making the following point. >> >> I create and intend to Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 >> objections the following proposal. >> >> Title: Getting rid of my own job >> AI: 3 >> Text: Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521 and 2527. >> From rule 2166 "Assets", delete the following text >> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its >> backing document is a contract." >> and delete the following text >> "or (d) contract" >> and delete the following text >> " A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is >> >> willing to receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a >> contract CANNOT be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the >> contract is silent on the matter, or if its willingness is >> indeterminate or the subject of a inextricable conditional, the >> procedure to determine its willingness is as follows: >> >> 1. If the contract appears to anticipate being given assets, >>other than for sustenance (e.g. by authorizing parties to >>spend the contract's assets), then the contract is willing to >>receive all assets. >> >> 2. Otherwise, it is unwilling to receive all assets. >> >> The previous paragraph (including the list) notwithstanding, a >> contract CAN be given 1 unit of Agora’s official currency a month >> for its sustenance payment, so long as it never has more than 1 >> unit of Agora’s official currency at a time." >> >> and delete the text >> " Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract >> CANNOT oblige a person who isn't a member to record its internal >> state, nor is the default recordkeepor responsible for tracking a >> contract's
BUS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
I oppose this, and object. I'm obviously biased, because I wrote the relevant system. If your problem with it is that it's over-complicated and badly implemented, I'd agree with you. That has a tendency to happen with any large game system I write. I get so buried in thinking about everything that could happen that I tend to make the system I'm building more complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't help, of course, that in Agora everything has a large amount of committee work in its design. People have a tendency to see even more problems that I didn't see, and fixing everything and addressing everyone's concerns always seems to lead to more bloat. So someone wants to reform and simplify this system, they have my full support and assistance. I can even try to write something up myself, if people enumerate the specific problems they have with the system, although I'm not sure I'm really the right person for the job. That all being said, I cannot support a repeal (or at any rate one without a replacement). Contracts need to be made simpler and more comfortable so that people actually use them. I'd like to know what problems people have with the current system, so that can be fixed. However, in deciding whether to repeal this, you have to understand my motivation for writing it in the first place. Contracts replaced a lot of dedicated systems for doing different things. Specifically, they replaced Organizations, which were even less usable, and Agencies, which only allowed acting on behalf. At the time, there was a serious proposal to allow people to write standalone backing documents. Contracts replaced all of that with one consolidated flexible system, the purpose of which was basically to allow people to add personal extensions to the ruleset. You can really do almost anything with them. I thought when I wrote this system that we needed a capability to allow people to create things for players without writing them into the ruleset, and I still think so today. Now, for some reason that I still have trouble understanding (I get that they're over complicated, but that doesn't directly make them unusable) people don't seem to do that with them much. However, I'm concerned about seeing a proliferation of subsystems and/or a lack of flexibility after their repeal. For that reason, I think that they should be reformed, not flat out repealed. -Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM Ned Strange wrote: > Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. > And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about > anymore. So I'm making the following point. > > I create and intend to Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 > objections the following proposal. > > Title: Getting rid of my own job > AI: 3 > Text: Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521 and 2527. > From rule 2166 "Assets", delete the following text > "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its > backing document is a contract." > and delete the following text > "or (d) contract" > and delete the following text > " A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is > > willing to receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a > contract CANNOT be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the > contract is silent on the matter, or if its willingness is > indeterminate or the subject of a inextricable conditional, the > procedure to determine its willingness is as follows: > > 1. If the contract appears to anticipate being given assets, >other than for sustenance (e.g. by authorizing parties to >spend the contract's assets), then the contract is willing to >receive all assets. > > 2. Otherwise, it is unwilling to receive all assets. > > The previous paragraph (including the list) notwithstanding, a > contract CAN be given 1 unit of Agora’s official currency a month > for its sustenance payment, so long as it never has more than 1 > unit of Agora’s official currency at a time." > > and delete the text > " Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract > CANNOT oblige a person who isn't a member to record its internal > state, nor is the default recordkeepor responsible for tracking a > contract's internal state." > > In rule 2425 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract" > > In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts" and > delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and delete the last > paragraph. > > In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and > the last sentence. > > In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text > "or contract" > > In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and > delete all text after it. Also, delete all instances of the text "or > contract" > > In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts," > > In rule 1994
