Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

>"The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or contract by
announcement if doing so is specified by a rule."

Doing so is specified by the same rule where that text exist. So the
Treasuror could cause Agora to pay any player shinies whenever he wants. Or
at least, that's how I'm understanding it rn. So like:

We have "The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or contract by
announcement if doing so is specified by a rule."

Rule 2483 specifies that. Where? In "The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay
any player or contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a rule."

So "The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or contract by
announcement.". Why? Because it is specified by a rule as explained above.

>A person CAN create a contract by announcement by spending 1 shiny

Why not just make abstract sub-contracts to a single contract? Only pay 1
shiny ever. And save on sustenance payments.

I personally don't like having to pay for contracts. We didn't have to pay
for Agencies, and they worked fine as a utility tool.

Or maybe I could make a mega-contract with other players, which has
abstract sub-contracts which I or any other member can create by
announcement, allowing us all to save on contract shinies.

If contracts are "Turning Complete" (used vaguely here, I dont know how
else to explain it), then there will always be the option to make
sub-contracts and other mechanics to dodge needing to make more than one
contract ever.

> " a contract CANNOT compel, forbid or in any way alter, tamper with, or
modify the performance of a protected action."

For example, me doing a payment to someone via a contract modifies how I
would perform one of the protected actions mentioned, because it consumes
IRL time, attention and my view on the world which may alter how I do a
protected action. To a teeny tiny extent, sure, but it complies to how
extremely strict that rule is in that regard (because of the "in any way"
in the quoted sentence. "Any way" is a *lot* of ways.)


Other than that it looks alright imo. I'll see if I can hopefully rewrite
some parts into more compressed/less wordy versions.

There are scams I see in it though, but I don't think that me or anyone is
motivated to say which they see if they can use them and just be silent
about it.


On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:50 AM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Affixed is a new draft. Notable changes include the addition of
> > section 1.4 with some tweaks to existing rules, adding sustenance
> > (read monthly fees), a few power tweaks, and several additions to the
> > protected actions list. Also included are numerous requested fixes and
> > typo corrections. I think I included everything I said I would. If I
> > missed anything or failed to respond to any complaints, or if you have
> > any other problems, please, let me know.
> >
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > P.S. I'm still working on writing that CFJ up, I haven't forgotten.
> >
> > ---
> > Title: Contracts v2
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐
> >
> >
> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
> ("[]")
> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of
> any rules
> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> > have been removed before its resolution.
> >
> > # 1 Cleanup
> > # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
> >
> > Destroy each organization.
> >
> > Destroy each agency.
> >
> > Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
> >
> > # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> > # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
> >
> > Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
> >
> > Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
> >
> > Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
> >
> > Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
> >
> > Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
> >
> > Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
> >
> > # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
> >
> > Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
> >
> >  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
> >  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
> >
> >{{{
> >The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
> >
> >The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
> >
> >1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
> >   defined by the Rules.
> >2. the list of all public classes of assets.
> >
> >}}}
> >
> > Make o the Treasuror.
> >
> > Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
> > "Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:
> >
> >  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
> >  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
> >  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
> >
> > # 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup
> >
> > Amend rule 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:50 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Affixed is a new draft. Notable changes include the addition of
> section 1.4 with some tweaks to existing rules, adding sustenance
> (read monthly fees), a few power tweaks, and several additions to the
> protected actions list. Also included are numerous requested fixes and
> typo corrections. I think I included everything I said I would. If I
> missed anything or failed to respond to any complaints, or if you have
> any other problems, please, let me know.
> 
> 
> -Aris
> 
> P.S. I'm still working on writing that CFJ up, I haven't forgotten.
> 
> ---
> Title: Contracts v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐
> 
> 
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
> 
> # 1 Cleanup
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
> 
> Destroy each organization.
> 
> Destroy each agency.
> 
> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
> 
> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
> 
> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
> 
> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
> 
> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
> 
> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
> 
> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
> 
> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
> 
> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
> 
> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
> 
>  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
> 
>{{{
>The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
> 
>The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
> 
>1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
>   defined by the Rules.
>2. the list of all public classes of assets.
> 
>}}}
> 
> Make o the Treasuror.
> 
> Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
> "Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:
> 
>  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
>  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
>  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
> 
> # 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup
> 
> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
> 
>  {{{
>  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>  }}}
> 
> Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
> entirely, with:
> 
>  {{{
>  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
>  Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
>  Agora up for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends
>  seven days after it begins.
> 
>  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
>  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
>  previously-placed bids in the same auction.
> 
>  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>  then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
>  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
>  by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person who
>  placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
>  }}}
> 
> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
> 
>  {{{
>  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
> 
>  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>  rule.
>  }}}
> 
> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").
> 
> 
> # 1.3 Agency Cleanup
> 
> Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")
> 
> Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")
> 
> # 1.4 Random Amendments

Somewhere in this section, fixing stamps would be nice.

> 
> Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by changing its last paragraph 
> to
> read:
> 
>  The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express or 
> reasonably
>  implied consent. The rules CANNOT compel players to unduly harass 
> non-players.
>  A non-person CANNOT be a player, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2139, "The Registrar", by changing the sentence "The Registrar is
> also responsible for tracking any switches that would otherwise lack an 
> officer
> to track them, unless the switch is defined as untracked." to read "The
> Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, defined in a rule
> or regulation, that would otherwise lack an officer to track them, unless the
> switch is defined as untracked.”

When this came up previously, I observed that no requirement to include it in a 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:58 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
>>> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>> 
>> This isn't technically tied to Organizations, but I agree with
>> repealing it anyway just because it's likely to become a dead-end
>> mechanic without them.
> 
> It's not doing much as is, either.

We’ve had precisely one player on Lockout, ever, to my knowledge. Quazie, take 
a bow.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

Affixed is a new draft. Notable changes include the addition of
section 1.4 with some tweaks to existing rules, adding sustenance
(read monthly fees), a few power tweaks, and several additions to the
protected actions list. Also included are numerous requested fixes and
typo corrections. I think I included everything I said I would. If I
missed anything or failed to respond to any complaints, or if you have
any other problems, please, let me know.


-Aris

P.S. I'm still working on writing that CFJ up, I haven't forgotten.

---
Title: Contracts v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
   defined by the Rules.
2. the list of all public classes of assets.

}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

  {{{
  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
  }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

  {{{
  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
  Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
  Agora up for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends
  seven days after it begins.

  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
  previously-placed bids in the same auction.

  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
  then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
  by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person who
  placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
  }}}

Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

  {{{
  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
  rule.
  }}}

Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").


# 1.3 Agency Cleanup

Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")

Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")

# 1.4 Random Amendments

Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by changing its last paragraph to
read:

  The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express or reasonably
  implied consent. The rules CANNOT compel players to unduly harass non-players.
  A non-person CANNOT be a player, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.


Amend Rule 2139, "The Registrar", by changing the sentence "The Registrar is
also responsible for tracking any switches that would otherwise lack an officer
to track them, unless the switch is defined as untracked." to read "The
Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, defined in a rule
or regulation, that would otherwise lack an officer to track them, unless the
switch is defined as untracked."

Amend Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", by adding the sentence "Allowing a
person to act on behalf of another person is secured at power 2.0." to the
beginning of the last paragraph.

Amend Rule

# 2 Contracts
# 2.1 Core Contract Features

Create a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text:

  A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
  therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate ruleset
  defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined mechanisms
  do not change 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, OK. I look forwards to when you do, then.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trying not to do the 7 versions thing this time. I haven't added
> ais523's upkeep fee thing yet, as it's more complicated than most of
> these corrections, and I don't want to publish a new draft until I do.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version"
> part.
> > Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of Agency
> stuff
> > lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even better, then,
> I'd be
> > super grateful)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
> >> > ("[]")
> >> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of
> >> > any
> >> > rules
> >> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes
> >> > to
> >> > have been removed before its resolution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <3
> >> >
> >> > [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a
> contract
> >> > is
> >> > not secured.]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What are the implications of this?
> >>
> >> A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
> >>
> >> > Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts
> by
> >> > announcement in a timely fashion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it
> >> > works,
> >> > but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up
> >> > to 7
> >> > days after their creation.”
> >>
> >> Done.
> >>
> >> > Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public
> textual
> >> > agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention
> >> > that
> >> > the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This may make pledges contracts, which could create double
> obligations.
> >>
> >>
> >> > if e/they do/does not do so
> >>
> >> It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
> >> though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits
> it
> >> > to
> >> > do
> >> > so.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes
> >> > that
> >> > are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
> >> > recordkeeping.
> >>
> >> I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
> >> message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
> >>
> >> > A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection,
> >> > even
> >> > if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use
> this
> >> > mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is
> underspecified
> >> > or
> >> > has unintended effects
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What Charter?
> >>
> >> Fixed.
> >>
> >> >  If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Typo
> >>
> >> Fixed.
> >>
> >> > More general comments:
> >> >
> >> > I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer
> creates a
> >> > contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a
> trust
> >> > token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then
> somehow
> >> > amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all
> >> > other
> >> > parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
> >> > “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent
> of
> >> > both
> >> > the player and the contract to switch tiers:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any
> >> > obligations
> >> > therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
> >> > 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
> >> > 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
> >> >
> >> > This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff”
> >> > would
> >> > be instantly suspect.
> >>
> >> I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
> >> principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
> >> least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
> >> many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
> >> stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
> >> would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
> >> that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
> >> some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
> >> agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

I'm trying not to do the 7 versions thing this time. I haven't added
ais523's upkeep fee thing yet, as it's more complicated than most of
these corrections, and I don't want to publish a new draft until I do.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version" part.
> Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of Agency stuff
> lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even better, then, I'd be
> super grateful)
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
>> > ("[]")
>> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of
>> > any
>> > rules
>> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes
>> > to
>> > have been removed before its resolution.
>> >
>> >
>> > <3
>> >
>> > [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract
>> > is
>> > not secured.]
>> >
>> >
>> > What are the implications of this?
>>
>> A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
>>
>> > Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts by
>> > announcement in a timely fashion.
>> >
>> >
>> > CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it
>> > works,
>> > but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up
>> > to 7
>> > days after their creation.”
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> > Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public textual
>> > agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention
>> > that
>> > the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
>> >
>> >
>> > This may make pledges contracts, which could create double obligations.
>>
>>
>> > if e/they do/does not do so
>>
>> It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
>> though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
>>
>> >
>> > A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits it
>> > to
>> > do
>> > so.
>> >
>> >
>> > This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes
>> > that
>> > are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
>> > recordkeeping.
>>
>> I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
>> message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
>>
>> > A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection,
>> > even
>> > if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use this
>> > mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is underspecified
>> > or
>> > has unintended effects
>> >
>> >
>> > What Charter?
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>> >  If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
>> >
>> >
>> > Typo
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>> > More general comments:
>> >
>> > I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer creates a
>> > contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a trust
>> > token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then somehow
>> > amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all
>> > other
>> > parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
>> > “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent of
>> > both
>> > the player and the contract to switch tiers:
>> >
>> > 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any
>> > obligations
>> > therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
>> > 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
>> > 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
>> >
>> > This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff”
>> > would
>> > be instantly suspect.
>>
>> I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
>> principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
>> least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
>> many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
>> stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
>> would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
>> that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
>> some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
>> agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
>>
>> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version"
part. Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of
Agency stuff lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even
better, then, I'd be super grateful)

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
> ("[]")
> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> > rules
> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> > have been removed before its resolution.
> >
> >
> > <3
> >
> > [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract
> is
> > not secured.]
> >
> >
> > What are the implications of this?
>
> A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
>
> > Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts by
> > announcement in a timely fashion.
> >
> >
> > CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it
> works,
> > but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up
> to 7
> > days after their creation.”
>
> Done.
>
> > Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public textual
> > agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention
> that
> > the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
> >
> >
> > This may make pledges contracts, which could create double obligations.
>
>
> > if e/they do/does not do so
>
> It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
> though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
>
> >
> > A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits it
> to
> > do
> > so.
> >
> >
> > This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes
> that
> > are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
> > recordkeeping.
>
> I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
> message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
>
> > A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection,
> even
> > if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use this
> > mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is underspecified
> or
> > has unintended effects
> >
> >
> > What Charter?
>
> Fixed.
>
> >  If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
> >
> >
> > Typo
>
> Fixed.
>
> > More general comments:
> >
> > I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer creates a
> > contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a trust
> > token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then somehow
> > amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all
> other
> > parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
> > “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent of
> both
> > the player and the contract to switch tiers:
> >
> > 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any
> obligations
> > therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
> > 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
> > 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
> >
> > This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff”
> would
> > be instantly suspect.
>
> I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
> principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
> least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
> many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
> stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
> would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
> that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
> some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
> agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:

>> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
>> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
>> rules
>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
>> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> It might be worth getting some confirmation on whether this actually
> works. (The last paragraph of rule 106 would suggest yes, but I think
> this is untested territory in Agora. B Nomic and BlogNomic both
> explored this space quite thoroughly, though, so it certainly can work
> in a successful nomic.)

I'll CFJ this.

> What about pledges? (Note that in the past, a pledge was just a
> contract with one member.)

If I'm going to follow your suggestion about paying for contracts, it
makes sense to keep pledges separate.


>> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>
> This isn't technically tied to Organizations, but I agree with
> repealing it anyway just because it's likely to become a dead-end
> mechanic without them.

It's not doing much as is, either.

>> Create a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text:
>
> Any reason behind the choice in power here? I vaguely remembered
> Contracts working at power 1.7, although looking through the actual old
> rules, they were at power 2.0. If we're going to have a power split
> between 2.0 and 2.5, it'd be helpful to have guidelines and reasoning
> for which goes there.
>
> Incidentally, my feelings on the matter are that contract rules should
> definitely be below the power of rule 2166 (but that's power 3 anyway),
> probably below the security limit of voting strength (which is 2.0; see
> rule 2422), and arguably below the security limit of Cards (1.7). I
> can't see any reason to take the power below 1.5, and as such, I'd
> consider 1.6 to be a reasonable Power for most contract actions.
>
> Note that "escalator mousetraps", where a player is forced into a
> contract via a scam-created rule, probably aren't worth worrying about
> much as it'd be easier to place the restrictions on the player
> directly. The exception is related to the use of contracts as Agencies,
> which is very powerful (and probably needs to be power 3 to function);
> that might need to be in a separate rule that specifically requires the
> player to have explicitly consented to the contract and any changes to
> it (or in a form of "constitutional law").

I have thought about it a little bit. Basically, I want contracts to
be bellow the power ~3 rules. I also want the core structural rules to
be above the other contract rules, but just by a little bit.
"Contracts as Agreements" needs to be more powerful than the highest
powered card rule, which is 2.0. Hence I decided to camp out the
relatively unused ~2.5 range. Any way I could satisfy you by tweaking
the power of other rules?

>>   A contract is a document, and the ruleset described entity embodied 
>> therein.
>
> Need something like "A contract is a document that has been made into a
> contract via a process described in the Rules", to stop random
> documents becoming contracts by default when the proposal is enacted.
> "Document" also has a rules-defined meaning, which may not be what we
> want; and the ability to amend a contract's text can easily interfere
> with several possible wordings (I'm finding it hard to make a good one
> where the contract /is/ its text). Perhaps better to make a contract
> /have/ text, rather than /be/ text.

Will this do: "A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset
described entity embodied
  therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate ruleset
  defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined mechanisms
  do not change the identity of the contract."? I really like the "a
contract is just special text that can do stuff" abstraction.


>> Create a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Parties to Contracts", with the 
>> following
>> text:
>>
>>   Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>>   contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>>   parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can 
>> leave
>>   a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits
>>   the to do so. A contract CAN expel a party or group of parties, causing em
>>   to cease being parties.
>
> "A contract CAN" is very hard to define; by what mechanism does it do
> so? Is it pragmatic or platonic? I'd recommend pragmatising this, so
> that some player (/ contract party?) has to explicitly expel the
> players by announcement.

I've added a distinction between "a contract can by announcement" and
"the text of a contract CAN".  The former is pragmatic, the later
isn't. This case would fall into the former category.

>>   It is IMPOSSIBLE, by any means, for a person to become a party to a 
>> contract,
>>   or for an 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Josh T]

Aw, I won't be able to keep / recreate 蘭亭社 under the new proposal. I'll
have to rethink how to test the things that should go with it should this
pass.

I would like to propose adding making CFJs as protected. I think the reason
thereof should be evident if one were party to a theoretical contract which
forbade making CFJs.

Otherwise, I think what needs to be said has been done. Well done.

天火狐

On 5 September 2017 at 11:22, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I read this last night, slept on it, skimmed it again, and read the
> replies. Here’s my initial thoughts, thin as they are - I had more, but
> Gaelan and ais523 have already covered most of my inquiries.
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> > existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> > proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o.
>
> No problem! I’m glad you found it useful.
>
> > # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> One thing I missed in my original Organization Repeal proposal was
> something you (Aris) did in the Assets proposal. Quoting that proposal:
>
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
> continue
> > to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
> shinies
> > are created to replace them.
>
> Some similar mechanism to make it clear that the Secretary becomes the
> Treasuror, rather than that the Secretary’s office ceases to be defined by
> the rules and a new office comes to be defined, would be nice. It’s not
> strictly necessary but it might influence when elections for the office can
> be called.
>
> Carrying on…
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
> >
> >  {{{
> >  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
> >  }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Estates?
>
> > Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
> >
> >  {{{
> >  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
> >  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
> >  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
> >
> >  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
> >  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
> >  rule.
> >  }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Shinies?
>
> > Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you”).
>
> Given that this rule is completely broken - its text never applies to any
> situation which can be reached by gameplay - I’m tempted to repeal it in a
> freestanding proposal just to get it gone. Objections?
>
> > Make  Notary. [Any volunteers? Maybe our current Secretary or
> > Superintendent?]
>
> I’m happy to take the office. This is an interesting-enough idea that I’d
> hate to see it wither for lack of recordkeeping.
>
> > # 3.0 Asset Changes
> >
> > Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing it to read in full:
> >
> >  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule, authorized regulation,
> >  group of rules/regulations, or contract (hereafter its backing
> >  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
> >  existence.
> >
> >  Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
> >  lack an owner, it is owned by Agora.  If an asset's backing document
> restricts
> >  its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained
> by or
> >  transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is
> owned
> >  by an entity outside that class (except if it is owned by Agora, in
> which case
> >  any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The
> restrictions in
> >  the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing
> document.
> >
> >  Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
> >  restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
>
> Flipping my previous two questions about ownership around, did you intend
> to forbid non-player persons from ever owning assets?
>
> -o
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Owen Jacobson]

I read this last night, slept on it, skimmed it again, and read the replies. 
Here’s my initial thoughts, thin as they are - I had more, but Gaelan and 
ais523 have already covered most of my inquiries.

On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o.

No problem! I’m glad you found it useful.

> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

One thing I missed in my original Organization Repeal proposal was something 
you (Aris) did in the Assets proposal. Quoting that proposal:

On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
> are created to replace them.

Some similar mechanism to make it clear that the Secretary becomes the 
Treasuror, rather than that the Secretary’s office ceases to be defined by the 
rules and a new office comes to be defined, would be nice. It’s not strictly 
necessary but it might influence when elections for the office can be called.

Carrying on…

On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
> 
>  {{{
>  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>  }}}

Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Estates?

> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
> 
>  {{{
>  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
> 
>  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>  rule.
>  }}}

Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Shinies?

> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you”).

Given that this rule is completely broken - its text never applies to any 
situation which can be reached by gameplay - I’m tempted to repeal it in a 
freestanding proposal just to get it gone. Objections?

> Make  Notary. [Any volunteers? Maybe our current Secretary or
> Superintendent?]

I’m happy to take the office. This is an interesting-enough idea that I’d hate 
to see it wither for lack of recordkeeping.

> # 3.0 Asset Changes
> 
> Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing it to read in full:
> 
>  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule, authorized regulation,
>  group of rules/regulations, or contract (hereafter its backing
>  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>  existence.
> 
>  Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>  lack an owner, it is owned by Agora.  If an asset's backing document 
> restricts
>  its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or
>  transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>  by an entity outside that class (except if it is owned by Agora, in which 
> case
>  any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in
>  the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
> 
>  Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
>  restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.

Flipping my previous two questions about ownership around, did you intend to 
forbid non-player persons from ever owning assets?

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 23:10 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> A few design principles:
> 
> 1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
> of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
> You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
> things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
> couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

Agreed. I'd put one caveat on this: contracts should probably not be
free to create. When they were, people tended to create a lot of junk
contracts that bogged down the Notary, and sometimes created huge
series of contracts all at once for scams.

Given Agora's current economic woes, I'd suggest something like a 1 sh.
fee for creating a contract, and a 1 sh. upkeep fee per month (paid by
the contract to Agora). This is small enough to not meaningfully impact
any legitimate uses, but would probably help keep contract spam in
check. We could increase the fee slightly if we wanted to.

> 2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
> cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
> much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
> great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
> have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
> which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
> Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
> Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
> could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
> mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.

We probably want arbitrary SHALL and SHALL NOT on members, plus
arbitrary rules for updating the contract's internal gamestate (which
is effectively a CAN/CANNOT limited to the contract itself). Old Agoran
contracts let each contract specify its own rules for joining, leaving,
amending, etc.; we might want to change that, or to preserve it (it
certainly lead to some interesting "socially driven" scams against
contract wording, which might or might not be a good idea depending on
your point of view).

> 3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
> successful parts of the existing organization system.

Agreed. Agora's had too many attempts to produce a contract-like system
that's different from everything that's gone before, and yet it keeps
converging back on contracts. If something works, we should probably
use it.

> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
> part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
> modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
> general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
> part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
> read/not get lost in.
> 
> Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
> appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).
> 
> -Aris
> 
> ---
> 
> Title: Contracts v.1
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): o, G.
> 
> 
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.

It might be worth getting some confirmation on whether this actually
works. (The last paragraph of rule 106 would suggest yes, but I think
this is untested territory in Agora. B Nomic and BlogNomic both
explored this space quite thoroughly, though, so it certainly can work
in a successful nomic.)

> # 1 Cleanup
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
> 
> Destroy each organization.
> 
> Destroy each agency.
> 
> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

What about pledges? (Note that in the past, a pledge was just a
contract with one member.)

> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
> 
> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
> 
> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
> 
> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
> 
> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

This isn't technically tied to Organizations, but I agree with
repealing it anyway just because it's likely to become a dead-end
mechanic without them.

> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
> 
> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
> 
> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
> 
> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
> 
>   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
> 
> {{{
> The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
> 
> The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
> 
> 1. the 

DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

I'm going to preface this by saying that my contracts proposal is kind
of long. It may take a few days for everyone to read through it and
stuff. It's long for several reasons. For one thing, it repeals about
as many rules as it creates. As I suggested, this is a consolidation
of the existing Agency and Organization mechanics, which means it
should be a net simplification, even though it doesn't feel like it.
It also adds in the whole new element that the thing is binding. At
some point we may be able to repeal pledges too, once everyone's used
to the new mechanics. Another reason is that I've littered the thing
with safety features. They're probably unnecessary, but better safe
than sorry.

A few design principles:

1. Contracts should be easy to use. The primary cause for the failure
of organizations was their complexity. You had to come up with a name.
You had to deal with member's budgets. You had to specify whether
things were "appropriate", without the ease of CANs and CANNOTs. You
couldn't specify SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

2. Contracts should be powerful, but not too powerful. The primary
cause for the limited adoption of agencies was that you couldn't do
much with them. Yeah, sure, you can do CANs and CANNOTs now. That's
great, but the agency can't own assets, or create obligations, or even
have more than one "Director". There was only one agency (the PDA,
which I created to let someone else run Promotor temporarily) before
Free Agency passed, greatly expanding what you could do with agencies.
Now there are many of them, but they're still not as versatile as they
could be. It goes without saying that we would like to avoid
mousetraps or other scams too, so some limitations are necessary.

3. Reuse what worked. A lot of my new contract rules is drawn from the
successful parts of the existing organization system.

My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o. The second
part consists of new rules to create contracts. The third part
modifies the assets rule, both to conform with contracts and for some
general minor fixes of ambiguities that have been pointed out. Each
part has subheadings, which should hopefully make it easier to
read/not get lost in.

Without further ado, here is my draft proposal. Comments and concerns
appreciated, though please try not to complain about the length :).

-Aris

---

Title: Contracts v.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G.


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
   defined by the Rules.
2. the list of all public classes of assets.

}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

  {{{
  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
  }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

  {{{
  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
  Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
  Agora up for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends
  seven days after it begins.

  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
  previously-placed bids in the same auction.

  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest
  bid, then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the
  emself by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The
  person who placed the