DIS: Draft Promotor Style Guide

[Aris Merchant]

Here's a draft of my Promotorial style guide. I'd appreciate comments.
It's written in my characteristic verbose style. I'm happy to
formulate a condensed version if people agree with the idea, but would
prefer something they can read more quickly.

-Aris
---
OFFICE OF THE PROMOTOR: OFFICIAL STYLE GUIDE

This document contains the Promotorial style guide, telling you how the
Office of the Promotor would prefer for you to format proposals. This
guide is non-binding, and I can fix most lapses (that's my job). Still,
I'd really appreciate it if you'd give it a read through and maybe consider
applying it next time you write a proposal. Some of the things that I'd like
you to do might actually slightly reduce the work you have to do. I'm more
than happy to answer questions if you have any. I really appreciate you taking
the time to read this.

Lines are wrapped to 80 characters. I don't mind wrapping them myself,
although it's a tad annoying when someone composes a proposal entirely
in eir email client and the lines aren't wrapped at all, forming giant
paragraphs all one one line. I don't mind if you wrap yourself to fewer than
80 characters: I'll probably just leave it with your wrapping. However,
making it so I can't wrap lines is VERY STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. This means
things like a quotation mechanism that marks each quoted line, or line
comments that aren't very short. PLEASE do not stop me from wrapping lines
consistently. Just about the only exception to this rule is URLs that are
over the limit, which I'll leave unwrapped.

Titles should be fairly short. I'm not picky about this, but if your title
is much over 40 characters I'll probably get annoyed with you. People sometimes
come up with 100+ character titles; that sort of thing is VERY STRONGLY
DISCOURAGED. Additionally, if you submit multiple versions of a proposal,
you're ENCOURAGED to each successive version with versions in the form "v2",
"v3", etc., but STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from marking versions in ways that differ
substantially from that.

Intents are two spaces per indent level. I don't mind fixing this for you at
all, but if you're ever wondering what to use, use two spaces. Also, if
there's a numbered or bulleted list, it's the number or bullet that gets
aligned to two spaces, and then all of the text lines up.

Headers should preferably be as close as possible to the heading used
for distributions, which looks like this:

Title: _
Adoption index: _._
Author: 
Co-authors: , 

The closer than you can get to that, the more helpful it is. That includes
putting things in that order, writing out all the fields, even the ones
that have default values, and writing each field on its own line. I can deal
with other formats, but I'll smile (literally) if you use this one.

Also, marking your proposal text with "text:" is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.
It doesn't help and it makes it more annoying to copy-paste. If you'd like
extra bonus points, you can mark the proposal text in curly brackets or
a line composed of all one character (like "--" or "//"). However,
it is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED to use any marking *on the same line* as the proposal
text. The proposal text should begin and end on a newline, with no characters
that aren't part of the text on the same line.

Again, thank you for reading this. This guide is non-binding, but if you could
try to follow it as much as conveniently possible, it would make my life
simpler. It is the Promotor's job to format the proposals, and dealing with
irregularities is why we have human officers. That being said, I always like
appreciate it when people make it easier for me to do my job. Do be warned,
though, that if you do something that really egregiously violates this guide,
I'll probably send an email to remind you, and may threaten Malevolent Paper
Shuffling, the highest penalty awardable by the Office of the Promotor. :)

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't 
give

an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just
that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard
definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart.


Here, I disagree.  I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up
substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by 
announcement" in
association with the definition of an action, it means the defined 
action is
performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc.  The parts in the quotes 
still

function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the
quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined.

-G.



Relevant clause, repeated for ease of reading:


   Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
   announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
   clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.


I find it unlikely either of us is going to convince the other, but here 
goes (also, I may be going a bit language nerd  
here):


Considering the wording as applying a specific property whenever the 
rules use "by announcement" with regards to an action does solve the 
active/passive grammatical disparity in R478's sentence (since it would 
be a dependent clause and an independent clause, each in the active 
voice). As for the "by announcement" being in quotes, that can be read 
as simply requiring the exact phrasing.


As another example, an instance in the current rules that I am 
absolutely sure uses definition-by-properties (since I wrote this) is 
this clause from R2162:



A Rule that designates
   a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
   to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
   level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
   switch as secured (at that power level).


This clearly does not give an actual definition for "secured" when 
applied to switches, it merely states the consequences of the Rules 
designating a type of switch as "secured". It looks relatively similar 
to R473's sentence - a quoted term, and a statement of what the 
consequences are when that term is used. A simple text replacement would 
simply not be meaningful here. Although R478's sentence uses a dependent 
clause, I read the two has having the same effect.


Compare this to


The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days".

or


To "change" one's vote is to
   retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one.


These examples are clearly actual definitions - they have a linking 
verb, a term, and a meaning. They don't examine what the text of the 
Rules says at all - they just say what a term means. A text substitution 
would be meaningful here.



Anyways, this has been my rant. It probably accomplished nothing, but I 
tried.


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Kerim Aydin]

On 11/9/2019 2:53 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

On 11/9/19 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


In the R478 text:

> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

The word "define" indicates that it is a definition, and the quotes
around the term "by announcement" indicate that this is the term being
defined.



I'm sorry, but this assertion doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the sentence
contains the word "define", but I think the object of "define" is pretty
clearly 'an action (that CAN be performed "by announcement")', and not "by
announcement".


Thanks, you're right about this part - the actual word "define" applies to
where each explicit action is defined elsewhere.  I'll fix that.


Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't give
an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just
that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard
definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart.


Here, I disagree.  I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up
substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by announcement" in
association with the definition of an action, it means the defined action is
performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc.  The parts in the quotes still
function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the
quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined.

-G.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3781 Assigned to G.

[Nch via agora-discussion]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, November 8, 2019 11:00 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> The below CFJ is 3781. I assign it to G..
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3781
>
> === CFJ 3781 ===
>
> In this message, Jason Cobb transferred a Coin.
>
> =
>
> Caller: Jason Cobb
> Barred: D. Margaux
>
> Judge: G.
>
> ===
>
> History:
>
> Called by Jason Cobb: 07 Nov 2019 04:16:02
> Assigned to G.: [now]
>
> =
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On 11/6/2019 8:16 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > I transfer 500 of D. Margaux's Coins to Jason Cobb.
> > [Anti-No Faking (although the CFJ should make it obvious): the above
> > action might not work.]
>
> Rule 478/36
> Fora [Excerpt]
>
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
>
> Rule 2577/2
> Asset Actions [Excerpt]
>
> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
> backing document.
>
> Rule 2483/13
> Economics
>
> Coins are the official currency of Agora and are tracked by the
> Treasuror. They can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
> A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Per Rule 2577, "an asset generally CAN be transferred [...] by announcement
> by its owner", and Rule 2438 does not modify this general statement at all.
> Therefore, a Coin can be transferred by announcement by its owner.
>
> Transferring D. Margaux's Coins is an action defined by the Rules that 'CAN
> be performed "by announcement"' (even if the intent is only that it CAN be
> performed by announcement by a single person), satisfying the first
> criterion in Rule 478.

"A person" makes it clear that only persons can do things "by announcement". 
2577 narrows the people that can transfer assets to "its owner". To me the 
logical reading is that the only entities that CAN "transfer assets by 
announcements" are owners of the asset who are also persons who performed the 
steps defined in 478. I don't buy this interpretation that the generality in 
478 is overriding the specificity of 2577, it seems like a union of conditions 
to me.

>
> I believe that I have unambiguously and clearly specified the action of
> transferring 500 of D. Margaux's Coins, and I have announced that I perform
> that action. Therefore, under Rule 478, I have performed that action, so, in
> this message, I transferred at least one Coin.
>
> I believe this CFJ should be judged TRUE.
>
> 

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/9/19 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


In the R478 text:

> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

The word "define" indicates that it is a definition, and the quotes
around the term "by announcement" indicate that this is the term being
defined. 



I'm sorry, but this assertion doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the 
sentence contains the word "define", but I think the object of "define" 
is pretty clearly 'an action (that CAN be performed "by announcement")', 
and not "by announcement".


Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by 
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't 
give an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is 
conceptually similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification 
actually is, just that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, 
if there's no hard definition, then the text-replacement argument kind 
of falls apart.


--
Jason Cobb

DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Kerim Aydin]

Proto-judgement for CFJ 3781:

In the R478 text:

> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

The word "define" indicates that it is a definition, and the quotes
around the term "by announcement" indicate that this is the term being
defined.

The problem with this definitional text is that the grammatical constructs
are mixed. The first part is in passive voice ("CAN be performed") while
the second part is in active voice ("a person performs").  This is a
grammatical error and should be fixed, either by making both active or
both passive (either would be fine and match the intent of this clause).

However, until it is fixed, how can we parse the text?  In particular, the
caller assets that this error is substantive and maps the subject of the
second clause ("a person", by which the caller means "any person") onto
any use of the term being defined ("by announcement"), even if an actual
use case specifies a more limited set of subjects (i.e. a more limited set
of persons who CAN perform the action).

While linguistic definitions should not be treated as strict string
replacements (and must take into account context, grammar, etc.), it is
useful to use a string-replacement approach to see if this works.

The simplest use case of the definition might be:
>  Person A CAN do X by announcement.

The caller's arguments assert that the portion of the definition "a person
performs" is part of that definition, and furthermore, that "a person"
refers to "any person".  So let's try that substitution for "by
announcement" in the simple example:

> Person A CAN do X by any person unambiguously and clearly specifying the
> action and announcing that e performs it.

Using this substitution method, we have a grammatical problem: two
subjects (Person A and any person).  This makes, for example, the "e"
ambiguous in terms of who is announced to be performing it.  Also note
that we had to mung the definition by shifting the "by" in "by
unambiguously" to be in front of "any person".  More importantly, it makes
a sentence that is self-contradictory in terms of the causal agent (and we
care about identifying causal agents in Agora) - is it Person A who CAN do
it, or any person who announces it?

So overall, this substitution requires more text manipulation, reads
incorrectly in terms of grammar, and leaves things broken and ambiguous in
terms of who is performing the action.

However, we can use the grammatical cues in the definition to line up the
substitution in a different way, in particular, lining up the "by" in "by
announcement" with the "by" in "by unambiguously".  Under this
interpretation, we get:

> Person A CAN do X by unambiguously and clearly specifying the
> action and announcing that e performs it.

This is grammatically clear, requires no text manipulation within the
definition, and matches the fairly clear intent. Therefore, it is
preferred as an operational way to interpret the broken grammar in the
definition, until the grammar is fixed.

Note that this interpretation doesn't ignore or discard the "a person
performs that action by" part of the definition as an inconvenience, it
simply treats it as a synonym for the passive phrasing "that action is
performed by" that matches the first part of the definition.

The result, of course, is that the definition on its own describes how a
person explicitly ENABLED to do X by announcement (e.g. transferring a
coin) goes about doing so, and it does not add any other persons to those
who are explicitly ENABLED.  I find FALSE.

Re: DIS: Ideas for Obligation System Development

[Nch via agora-discussion]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 4:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> Okay, I've had a bunch of ideas for developments around contracts and the
> like. I've been working on a proposal, but I wanted to solicit public
> comment before going ahead with it.
>
> -   Create an office of Notary, responsible for tracking contracts, pledges,
> and promises (see below). I don't particularly have the resources to do
> this myself, but I'm sure someone would volunteer. Between thee three
> systems, there would IMO be enough to track that an officer is warranted.
>
> -   Reenact the promise system [1]. Yes, I'm aware this could be done with
> contracts. However, no one is likely to do the work without a standard
> architecture, which doesn't technically need to be in the ruleset, and it
> makes sense for the Notary to track them, which does need to be in the
> ruleset.
>
> -   Enact a lightweight system for governing commercial transactions, along
> the lines of the "trade order" thing, but stripped down enough that it can
> fit in a short rule
>
> -   Optionally, redefine all of the above so that everything is just defined
> as a type of contract. This would involve making contracts in general
> slightly more powerful.
>
> [1]
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2013-June/010166.html
>
> -Aris
>

I'm very for this. I also think we should keep contracts in and be very 
hesitant to repeal them again. We tend to repeal them when they're not being 
used, then want them, reinvent them, and find new problems with the new 
versions.