Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> ais523 wrote: >> >>> "Cretans" doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over >>> itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The >>> "current holder" here is interesting; my reading is "holder at the time >>> of vote collecting". It doesn't seem ridiculously counter-common-sense >>> to me that a position, rather than a person, could be a vote collector; >>> but the rules don't seem to back my interpretation up. Unfortunately, >>> I'm not entirely sure they back up yours either; it's quite a grey area. >> >> I think Zefram once judged that the position of vote collector for >> proposals was attached to Assessor, so moved with the office; but >> this may have been superseded by subsequent explicit legislation >> one way or the other. Someone want to look up details? > > R208: > > Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting > to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is > defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if > the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the > current holder of that position. > > In this case, the initiator is defined as the IADoP, so the collector is > also the IADoP. Yes, *unless* the office is vacant, in which case the holder of the office is null, then there is *not* exactly one vote collector, and the first sentence is in contradiction with the second sentence. At which point, you drop the latter sentence, and the vote collector is the initiator. "Exactly one vote collector" is protective language specifically designed to ensure just that, that there is *exactly* one. That used to be more important before deputization, but the fact is, that protection remains. If you don't want that, you need to legislatively remove "exactly one". -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > > ais523 wrote: > > > >> "Cretans" doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over > >> itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The > >> "current holder" here is interesting; my reading is "holder at the time > >> of vote collecting". It doesn't seem ridiculously counter-common-sense > >> to me that a position, rather than a person, could be a vote collector; > >> but the rules don't seem to back my interpretation up. Unfortunately, > >> I'm not entirely sure they back up yours either; it's quite a grey area. > > > > I think Zefram once judged that the position of vote collector for > > proposals was attached to Assessor, so moved with the office; but > > this may have been superseded by subsequent explicit legislation > > one way or the other. Someone want to look up details? > > R208: > > Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting > to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is > defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if > the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the > current holder of that position. > > In this case, the initiator is defined as the IADoP, so the collector is > also the IADoP. The issue here is that there isn't an IADoP, and that the rule is ambiguous. (The other reading is "current holder of that position" = "current holder of IADoP" = G. as deputisation is done as if you held the position.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On 7/6/09 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] > > That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed > private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations. > One small part of that is an "act on behalf of". When it happens, > all the public needs to know is that the clause exists (and that it's > not contested between grantor and grantee, which can be accomplished > by a self-ratify period). It's possible to use the manipulations above > to make those sorts of sub-contracts, but the Rule should be more > flexible and just allow the publication of the clause to be sufficient, > as it's a natural function of private contracts. This rule just places > a bureaucratic burden on something that remains possible anyway. Since undoubtedly, the various parts of your detailed private contract will interact in all sorts of fun ways, I do not want to have to figure out whether the clause you published is really effective in the context of the contract or not. While we could attempt to define what it means to publish a suitable "contract detail" and make errors self-ratifying or similar, I really think it's easier to just require it to be a separate contract, so we know its POSSIBILITY is not overridden by unseen clauses. -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > >> "Cretans" doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over >> itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The >> "current holder" here is interesting; my reading is "holder at the time >> of vote collecting". It doesn't seem ridiculously counter-common-sense >> to me that a position, rather than a person, could be a vote collector; >> but the rules don't seem to back my interpretation up. Unfortunately, >> I'm not entirely sure they back up yours either; it's quite a grey area. > > I think Zefram once judged that the position of vote collector for > proposals was attached to Assessor, so moved with the office; but > this may have been superseded by subsequent explicit legislation > one way or the other. Someone want to look up details? R208: Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the current holder of that position. In this case, the initiator is defined as the IADoP, so the collector is also the IADoP.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
ais523 wrote: > "Cretans" doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over > itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The > "current holder" here is interesting; my reading is "holder at the time > of vote collecting". It doesn't seem ridiculously counter-common-sense > to me that a position, rather than a person, could be a vote collector; > but the rules don't seem to back my interpretation up. Unfortunately, > I'm not entirely sure they back up yours either; it's quite a grey area. I think Zefram once judged that the position of vote collector for proposals was attached to Assessor, so moved with the office; but this may have been superseded by subsequent explicit legislation one way or the other. Someone want to look up details?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election is FAILING QUORUM
Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> That makes 6 VOTES! Yes, 6! Not 8! 6! That just ain't enough! Pick it up >> folks! especially Wooble and G. - people are RELYING on you and you just >> aren't pulling through! > > But if I don't vote, I'll keep the office anyway and it will be > slightly longer before someone can try to start a new election. Huh? It won't change the timing.
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Registrar Election is FAILING QUORUM
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > That makes 6 VOTES! Yes, 6! Not 8! 6! That just ain't enough! Pick it up > folks! especially Wooble and G. - people are RELYING on you and you just > aren't pulling through! But if I don't vote, I'll keep the office anyway and it will be slightly longer before someone can try to start a new election.
DIS: Re: BUS: Too Busy
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 19:10 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > I resign the office of IADoP. > I assume the office of IADoP. In the current climate, assuming anything about offices tends to be a bad idea. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This is dumb
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:05 PM, ais523 wrote: > If we really want to end the ambiguity, then G. can resign and coppro > can take the office as Default Officeholder. That may not be the best > way out of the issue, though. That wouldn't resolve the ambiguity pertaining to the possibly-ongoing election. -- -c.
DIS: Re: BUS: This is dumb
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 19:47 -0400, comex wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following incorrect document:
> { The office of Grand Poobah is empty. There are no ongoing elections
> for the office of Grand Poobah or decisions to determine a new
> officeholder for that office. }
>
> The document is incorrect because coppro is the Grand Poobah, and
> there may or may not be an ongoing election/decision. It might be a
> nice subject for CFJ, but I'd like to get a real Poobah into offce
> without wasting any more time, especially if G.'s purported decision
> initiation turns out to have been platonically invalid.
>
> I intend, with support, to initiate an election for Grand Poobah.
> (This is ineffective now, but the ratification will retroactively
> validate it.)
>
I still believe G. is the Grand Poobah. I suspect I've missed some of
the arguments to the contrary; will someone please point me to them?
If we really want to end the ambiguity, then G. can resign and coppro
can take the office as Default Officeholder. That may not be the best
way out of the issue, though.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rest pieces
2009/7/6 Geoffrey Spear : > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Elliott > Hird wrote: >> I vote for Goethe in the Grand Poobah election. > > Apparently 4 notes can't buy nickname respect :P > Oops.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by > > deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for > > it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is "initiator > > specified as a person - that person collects; initiator specified as an > > office - that office collects", which is a nice simple common sense > > rule. > > Except for the "exactly one" bit. That implies very strongly that there > can't be zero. > > So there are two statements in the R208 paragraph: > > 1. There is exactly one vote collector (default value initiator); > 2. The vote collector is the current holder of the office. > > These contradict each other if the office is vacant (the first sentence > saying there is one vote collector, the latter saying there is none, as > there is no current holder). If so, we use "Cretans" to remove the latter > sentence, leaving us with the fact that there is one vote collector, who > is the initiator. "Cretans" doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The "current holder" here is interesting; my reading is "holder at the time of vote collecting". It doesn't seem ridiculously counter-common-sense to me that a position, rather than a person, could be a vote collector; but the rules don't seem to back my interpretation up. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure they back up yours either; it's quite a grey area. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
G. wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the > new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the > active first-class players. The valid options are PRESENT, G., and > WOOBLE. > I am the vote collector. CoE (not actually a CoE, more a validity challenge): The vote collector is the IADoP, you are not the IADoP, so this decision doesn't exist. >>> I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting >>> to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when >>> the office is vacant (some combination of common sense and R2240 there). >>> So at that instant I was in fact the vote collector. If the office is >>> re-filled, the IADoP would be the vote collector. >> I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by >> deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for >> it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is "initiator >> specified as a person - that person collects; initiator specified as an >> office - that office collects", which is a nice simple common sense >> rule. > > Except for the "exactly one" bit. That implies very strongly that there > can't be zero. > > So there are two statements in the R208 paragraph: > > 1. There is exactly one vote collector (default value initiator); > 2. The vote collector is the current holder of the office. > > These contradict each other if the office is vacant (the first sentence > saying there is one vote collector, the latter saying there is none, as > there is no current holder). If so, we use "Cretans" to remove the latter > sentence, leaving us with the fact that there is one vote collector, who > is the initiator. Oh, neat, "Cretans" actually applying in practice! Is this the first time that's happened?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the active first-class players. The valid options are PRESENT, G., and WOOBLE. I am the vote collector. >>> >>> CoE (not actually a CoE, more a validity challenge): The vote collector >>> is the IADoP, you are not the IADoP, so this decision doesn't exist. >> >> I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting >> to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when >> the office is vacant (some combination of common sense and R2240 there). >> So at that instant I was in fact the vote collector. If the office is >> re-filled, the IADoP would be the vote collector. > > I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by > deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for > it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is "initiator > specified as a person - that person collects; initiator specified as an > office - that office collects", which is a nice simple common sense > rule. Except for the "exactly one" bit. That implies very strongly that there can't be zero. So there are two statements in the R208 paragraph: 1. There is exactly one vote collector (default value initiator); 2. The vote collector is the current holder of the office. These contradict each other if the office is vacant (the first sentence saying there is one vote collector, the latter saying there is none, as there is no current holder). If so, we use "Cretans" to remove the latter sentence, leaving us with the fact that there is one vote collector, who is the initiator. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the > >> new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the > >> active first-class players. The valid options are PRESENT, G., and WOOBLE. > >> I am the vote collector. > > > > CoE (not actually a CoE, more a validity challenge): The vote collector > > is the IADoP, you are not the IADoP, so this decision doesn't exist. > > I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting > to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when > the office is vacant (some combination of common sense and R2240 there). > So at that instant I was in fact the vote collector. If the office is > re-filled, the IADoP would be the vote collector. I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is "initiator specified as a person - that person collects; initiator specified as an office - that office collects", which is a nice simple common sense rule. Looking at R2160(d), it would be IMPOSSIBLE in a hypothetical gamestate in which you were IADoP (which is what R2160(d) cares about) for you to initiate an election in which the vote collector was always you, rather than the holder of IADoP at the time the office was filled. Therefore, if the rest of your reasoning is correct, the attempt to deputise fails. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the >> new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the >> active first-class players. The valid options are PRESENT, G., and WOOBLE. >> I am the vote collector. > > CoE (not actually a CoE, more a validity challenge): The vote collector > is the IADoP, you are not the IADoP, so this decision doesn't exist. I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when the office is vacant (some combination of common sense and R2240 there). So at that instant I was in fact the vote collector. If the office is re-filled, the IADoP would be the vote collector. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I think, that even if I was self-ratified as Holding the Office, the > election itself was never completed if the decision wasn't started, > therefore the IADoP was still required to start it. E.g., even if > the state of "Goethe = officeholder" was ratified, the termination of > the election process wasn't. You didn't mention this possibility in > your judgement at all; though that wasn't the subject in any case. No, what self-ratified was the initiation of the election process. (I'm currently wondering if anyone read my CFJ arguments...) The initation of the election process self-ratifying means that the resolution was correct (even though it wouldn't have been without the self-ratification), so the election resolved correctly and installed you as IADoP. You haven't been ratified as IADoP via the IADoP's report; just via the election, 'normally'. > As to whether coppro or I hold it currently, I was actually slightly > more swayed by coppro's arguments than yours; but either way (as coppro > says) your own opinion was not a corollary to the actual CFJ finding, > so a new CFJ would be needed. What are coppro's arguments? They don't seem to be attached to the relevant CFJ, and I don't remember em giving any either. (They probably existed; I just don't know where they are.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the
>> new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the
>> active first-class players. The valid options are PRESENT, G., and WOOBLE.
>> I am the vote collector.
>
> CoE (not actually a CoE, more a validity challenge): The vote collector
> is the IADoP, you are not the IADoP, so this decision doesn't exist.
>
> R208:
> {{{
> Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting
> to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is
> defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if
> the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the
> current holder of that position.
> }}}
Wasn't there a precedent about this one? I remember thinking the same
thing and finding otherwise several months ago. Oh, that's right:
the IADoP is defined as the *initiator* of the decision, and required
to initiate it. I deputized to do that. Now, since there is no current
holder of the position, the vote collector would default to the initiator
(me). If someone comes to hold the IADoP position, that person would
become the vote collector. Something like that; if I can't dig the
firm precedent up I suggest you CFJ it.
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: IADoP Poobah
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I deputize for the IADoP to accept coppro's recent COE: I believe the >> report was in error, and coppro is the Grand Poobah. > I don't, and I judged the relevant CFJ. The existence of the election in > question self-ratified, and given that it exists I don't think you can > reasonably claim the resolution was incorrect. > >> I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the >> new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the >> active first-class players. The valid options are PRESENT, G., and WOOBLE. >> I am the vote collector. > > I don't believe this election exists, but just in case, I vote G.. I think, that even if I was self-ratified as Holding the Office, the election itself was never completed if the decision wasn't started, therefore the IADoP was still required to start it. E.g., even if the state of "Goethe = officeholder" was ratified, the termination of the election process wasn't. You didn't mention this possibility in your judgement at all; though that wasn't the subject in any case. As to whether coppro or I hold it currently, I was actually slightly more swayed by coppro's arguments than yours; but either way (as coppro says) your own opinion was not a corollary to the actual CFJ finding, so a new CFJ would be needed. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Rest pieces
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > I vote for Goethe in the Grand Poobah election. Apparently 4 notes can't buy nickname respect :P
DIS: Re: BUS: A surprising deregistration
Wooble wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, C-walker > wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> I'm treating this as ineffective (game custom to the contrary >>> notwithstanding), and I publish an NoV alleging that C-walker violated What game custom? Anyway, precedent is on your side (CFJ 1856). >>> the Power 1 Rule 2215 by making the above statement while not >>> reasonably believing the cited private contract existed, and thus not >>> reasonably believing e could cause Lynn Shawcroft to register. >> I contest this as Wooble could not reasonably believe that this was not a >> joke. > > I initiate a criminal CFJ regarding this NoV. I'd never heard of Lynn > Shawcroft before, and R2215 is the only think protecting us from > players claiming the existence of private contracts with random > non-participants. Gratuitous: The "no reasonable person would take me seriously" defense was eliminated in May 2009, when Rule 2215 was amended from "intended to mislead" back to "unless e reasonably believes that it is true".
DIS: Re: BUS: A surprising deregistration
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, C-walker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I'm treating this as ineffective (game custom to the contrary >> notwithstanding), and I publish an NoV alleging that C-walker violated >> the Power 1 Rule 2215 by making the above statement while not >> reasonably believing the cited private contract existed, and thus not >> reasonably believing e could cause Lynn Shawcroft to register. > > I contest this as Wooble could not reasonably believe that this was not a > joke. See http://cfj.qoid.us/1849 - Agora has a bad sense of humor. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> Suppose one
> player acts on behalf of another claiming that a secret contract (which
> the second is party to, but the first isn't) allows them to. The second
> player cannot then object without revealing information that e is
> contractually obligated to keep secret. This gives a rather simple and
> efficient method of busting the secrecy of such contracts; object, or be
> enslaved.)
You could meta-object ("I can't comment on this") in such a way that might
give the judge reason enough to throw things out. But yes, if you sign
up for any contract with an NDA, you are in potentially dangerous waters
regardless, I don't think we can legislate or judge that away. I can't
comment on the fact that people were actively wondering in 2002 if the
UNDEAD would cut of the fingers of people trying to leave the agreement.
Hmm, R101 "participation in the fora" doesn't protect against an NDA.
Nor does "consent to agree." But "initiate a process to resolve a matter"
just might. In other words, maybe a contract can't prevent or punish you
from calling a CFJ in which, at the very least, you privately share
information with the judge sufficient to decide the case. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Evidence: the quote above. > > > > Arguments: The issue here is about how much evidence needs to be given > > for act-on-behalf to work. Contracts can generally use their own > > definitions; but what about private parts of public contracts? > > Certainly, if this works, it shouldn't be able to. > > Why shouldn't it? > > Gratuitous: If the alleged grantee is obviously paying attention to the > game and doesn't protest that it fails, our current custom is to prima > facie assume that it works [CFJ 1290 is relevant in cases where a game- > participating grantee is pointedly silent]. This doesn't seem particularly > dangerous, if we allow private contracts in the first place we are > allowing all kinds of private dealings like this, and we really can't stop > or detect problems in any of them unless a party protests, we pretty much > have to take at face value that if two parties show that a private > understanding was reached, it was. -G. Gratuitous: It does not make much sense for secret information to have effects on platonic gamestate; it is a lot more sensible for private contracts to be limited to affecting the results of court cases concerning them indirectly. Breach of a private contract can be punished; that's enough to make private contracts useful. Also, putting the onus on a party protesting is very dangerous; they might not be aware that the action had happened. (At least one non-player is party to a contract, for instance.) With a public contract, everyone can see for emself that the action is legal; with a private contract, there is a huge onus on the parties. (Also, consider private contracts with a secrecy clause, such as the (possibly defunct) UNDEAD. Suppose one player acts on behalf of another claiming that a secret contract (which the second is party to, but the first isn't) allows them to. The second player cannot then object without revealing information that e is contractually obligated to keep secret. This gives a rather simple and efficient method of busting the secrecy of such contracts; object, or be enslaved.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: A surprising deregistration
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM, C-walker wrote: > As per our private contract, I act on behalf of Lynn Shawcroft to > announce that e registers. Can you please provide information sufficient to contact em?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions > > wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave > > contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. > > My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it adds a bureaucratic and > easy-to-screw-up overhead that doesn't actually add anything of value, > when the alternative is to have the proposed Rule allow relevant clauses > of private contracts to work. -G. > That can probably be added later rather than messing up the fix now, though; and I still think that your alternative potentially leads to rather awkward hidden-information scams (see comex's recent attempt to act on my behalf; contracts are generally taken to be able to define the terms they use). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >>> Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions >>> wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave >>> contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. >> >> My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it adds a bureaucratic and >> easy-to-screw-up overhead that doesn't actually add anything of value, >> when the alternative is to have the proposed Rule allow relevant clauses >> of private contracts to work. -G. > > See my recent action. Actually, your recent action would fail my test too, as you didn't publish a clause that actually says you can act on behalf of (withholding a definition of a made-up word is the same as not publishing the information, really). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed ... > > I've agreed to a private contract with ais523 called Fookie II. It > contains the following text: > > 4. Any party to this contract CAN > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk > (as defined by this contract) on behalf of any other party by > announcement. > > I hereby act on behalf of ais523 to retract eir vote on Proposal 6397. > Note: This fails if Fookie II does not define nkep appropriately. Sure. Works fine. And then ais523 has X amount of time to protest if nkep doesn't mean what you claim it means. If ais523 doesn't protest, the public doesn't need to know what nkep means, except that all parties believe it allows the PoA to function. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >> Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions >> wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave >> contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. > > My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it adds a bureaucratic and > easy-to-screw-up overhead that doesn't actually add anything of value, > when the alternative is to have the proposed Rule allow relevant clauses > of private contracts to work. -G. See my recent action. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions > wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave > contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it adds a bureaucratic and easy-to-screw-up overhead that doesn't actually add anything of value, when the alternative is to have the proposed Rule allow relevant clauses of private contracts to work. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly > > that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so > > that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why > > require simultaneous publication in more than one rule, when we have a > > rule that deals with publicising of contracts already? > > Er, my point is, doesn't the proposal outlaw that kind of thing, and say > that the full contract that contains the trigger has to be public? -G. Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if >> the contract detail is published when the act is performed). >> Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in >> this private contract, the contractees CAN make a public contract an >> instant before acting on behalf of, to which the contractees pre- >> agree to agree to..." > > I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly > that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so > that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why > require simultaneous publication in more than one rule, when we have a > rule that deals with publicising of contracts already? Er, my point is, doesn't the proposal outlaw that kind of thing, and say that the full contract that contains the trigger has to be public? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote: >> I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to >> create the public contract. > > The parties to a contract can agree to it secretly and have it become > a public contract upon one of them publishing the contract and a list > of its parties without having to act on behalf of the other parties to > join it. Here's an example (not a real contract. Really!): 1. This is a private contract called the Order of the Evil Eye, whose members are known to each other and whose purpose is to Dominate Agora. Full membership of N members should remain secret, etc. 2. Under certain circumstances, OEE members need to act on behalf of each other [circumstances detailed here]. They SHALL NOT switch the following contracts' Disclosure to Public unless those (secret) conditions are met. Subcontract A: The Disclosure of this contract can be set to public by Person A. Person A can act on behalf of Person B to do X. Subcontract B: ... [you would actually need either (N choose 2) or 2^N of these for each member pairing, what a headache to accomplish something simple!] Compare the Easy Way: "As permitted by the Rules, I publish the following clause of a private contract that includes myself and the grantee as members, and I act on behalf of em to...", [along with a rules clause that says the grantee has a certain time to protest this if it's wrong]. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if > the contract detail is published when the act is performed). > Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in > this private contract, the contractees CAN make a public contract an > instant before acting on behalf of, to which the contractees pre- > agree to agree to..." I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why require simultaneous publication in more than one rule, when we have a rule that deals with publicising of contracts already? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> 6402 D 1 3.0 woggle Regulating Act-on-Behalf >> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if >> the contract detail is published when the act is performed). >> Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in >> this private contract, the contractees CAN make a public contract an >> instant before acting on behalf of, to which the contractees pre- >> agree to agree to..." > > I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to > create the public contract. Not if it's a pre-made "public" contract that doesn't "take effect" until published, e.g. "Clause 5 of this private contract is a public contract that takes effect when..." or actually just "clause 5 is a sub-contract whose Disclosure can be flipped to public just before the action is performed." That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations. One small part of that is an "act on behalf of". When it happens, all the public needs to know is that the clause exists (and that it's not contested between grantor and grantee, which can be accomplished by a self-ratify period). It's possible to use the manipulations above to make those sorts of sub-contracts, but the Rule should be more flexible and just allow the publication of the clause to be sufficient, as it's a natural function of private contracts. This rule just places a bureaucratic burden on something that remains possible anyway. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote: > I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to > create the public contract. The parties to a contract can agree to it secretly and have it become a public contract upon one of them publishing the contract and a list of its parties without having to act on behalf of the other parties to join it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 6402 D 1 3.0 woggle Regulating Act-on-Behalf > AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if > the contract detail is published when the act is performed). > Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in > this private contract, the contractees CAN make a public contract an > instant before acting on behalf of, to which the contractees pre- > agree to agree to..." I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to create the public contract.
