Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 02:46:42 am Alexander Smith wrote: Pavitra wrote: ais523 wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more Protection-racket-like mousetraps. Legal contracts should have no guarantee of non-trappiness (the old Agoran custom, I think, is that you should know better than to agree to a buggy text), but Equitable contracts should have ample safeguards. They don't, because the method by which a player agrees depends on its current Enforceability. There isn't a mechanism to agree to someone else's contract unless it specifically allows it, and even Unbinding documents can restrict who can agree to them. So that handles Enforceability. Spirit's deduced from the Enforceability and the document's text (just like pledgeness used to be), so that isn't a problem either. The point that isn't clear to me is this: can there exist two documents with different switch-states but identical texts?
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Pavitra wrote: On Tuesday 18 November 2008 02:46:42 am Alexander Smith wrote: Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more Protection-racket-like mousetraps. Legal contracts should have no guarantee of non-trappiness (the old Agoran custom, I think, is that you should know better than to agree to a buggy text), but Equitable contracts should have ample safeguards. Wasn't it Peter Suber who said (paraphrasing) anyone who agrees to a Rules change mechanism that's anything other than unanimous deserves what they get? -G.
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
Goethe wrote: Wasn't it Peter Suber who said (paraphrasing) anyone who agrees to a Rules change mechanism that's anything other than unanimous deserves what they get? -G. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm After Nomic was first published in Scientific American, a German philosopher wrote to me insisting that Rule 101 (that players should obey the rules) should be omitted from the Initial Set and made part of a truly immutable shell. He missed an essential point of the game. Rule 101 is included precisely so that it can be amended; if players amend or repeal it, they deserve what they get. and, later, My rationale for requiring unanimous votes for amendment, initially, is to create a kind of social contract in which no player can be overruled until she consents to take the risk by switching to majority rule or some other system.
RE: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
Pavitra wrote:
ais523 wrote:
calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both
(but must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules
A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or Dual.
I thought of that. May as well.
The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with
respect to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only
be initiated with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect
to Hidden contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity
case with respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null
judgement.
This logic should be elsewhere, like rules 2169 (...in the operation
of a particular Equitable or Dual contract) and 1742 (Parties to a
Legal or Dual contract SHALL act in accordance...).
Actually for the latter you probably have the right idea organizing it
by Enforceability, so something like Parties to a Loose,
non-Equitable contract SHALL act as specified by that contract.
Aha! Yes, that's the best way to do it, probably
Agreement (Power 2)
{{{
At any given time, for each document, each person is either not
agreeing to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that
document, or publically agreeing to that document; this is a
persistent status that can change only as described by rules with
power at least 1.5.
This should be a switch. Agreement is a switch possessed by each
ordered pair of the form (person, document), with the possible values
Demurring (default), Conspiring, and Professing.
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
and could have ceased to agree to the document in question
during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no
effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other
than the ceasing to agree itself.
This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership
is restricted to parties.
Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract
specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good
thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more
Protection-racket-like mousetraps.
Pledge is a possible value for Enforceability. A Pledge contract
can also be known as merely a pledge, unless this is unclear from
context.
I'm not sure this could be abused in the case of pledges, but in
general -- do these rules enable one person to unilaterally disband a
contract by agreeing to a document with identical text, but doing so
in a way that changes its Enforceability or Spirit? If not, can you
explain exactly how they don't?
They don't, because the method by which a player agrees depends on its
current Enforceability. There isn't a mechanism to agree to someone
else's contract unless it specifically allows it, and even Unbinding
documents can restrict who can agree to them. So that handles
Enforceability. Spirit's deduced from the Enforceability and the
document's text (just like pledgeness used to be), so that isn't a
problem either.
Entities can act on behalf of parties to a contract as
specifically, clearly and unambiguously specified in a Public
contract, pledge, or Loose contract whose text is publically
available;
Entities can act on behalf of parties to a Public, Pledge, or Loose
contract whose text is publically available as that contract clearly
and unambiguously specifies.
Looks good.
Pavitra, who totally wants coauthor credit on this
Of course, this probably needs a lot of feedback to work and everyone
who helps will get credit for the final proposal.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
ais523 wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more Protection-racket-like mousetraps. If a contract can reach outside itself to specify direct penalties, then something's wrong right there. A more interesting case would be requiring the remaining parties to act against the ex-party's interests (vote against eir proposals, etc.). The other side of this is that a party who owns assets backed by the contract and restricted to its parties, and who didn't object to an amendment but forgot to explicitly consent, would automatically cease to agree (and, ironically, lose those assets).
DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
(This was written in a hurry due to the recent scam, so probably is full
of bugs and mistakes atm. I just want to see what people think of the
idea. Also this doesn't include the amend/enact/repeal stuff, just gives
a flavour. This attempts to keep the current semantics of contract law
whilst fixing all the bugs I've noticed; it ends up with more than just
a few types of contract as a result.
Quick feature guide:
Contracts are now documents with switches in certain positions; the
switches flip under certain conditions. All agreement and disagreement
to documents has to be explicit, and what happens as a result, and how
it is achieved, depends on the states of the switches in question.
Contracts can be Equitable, Legal, or both, which affects how they are
enforced, and have varying levels of secrecy according to the state of
their switches; loose and public equitable contracts can also be General
(anyone can equate against them) or Special (only parties can equate
against them).
Quick transition guide:
Anything Unbinding (insufficient parties)
Unbinding Secret (private agreement)
Secret Hidden (informing the Notary)
Hidden Loose (publishing text and membership)
Unbinding Loose (agreeing to a contract that's been published)
Loose Public (all parties publically agree, it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Public (public agreement, and it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Pledge (public announcement, it specifies it's a pledge)
Maybe there should be a Public Loose too, but I'm not sure.
Things not included here, because they still work the same way:
Equity cases still work much the same way, with only minor amendments
needed. Contests still work the same way.)
Enforceability (Power 2)
{{{
Enforceability is a document switch, tracked by the Notary, which has a
default value of Unbinding, and a set of possible values consisting of
Unbinding plus any values for it defined by other rules with power at
least 1.5. Notwithstanding other rules, the Notary's report need not
include the value of instances of Enforceability if the Enforceability
is set to Unbinding, Secret, Hidden or Loose, although it SHOULD include
the values of instances of Enforceability set to Loose. Enforceability
is generally automatically flipped by other rules in response to actions
by persons; it is secured at power threshold 1.5.
A contract is a document whose Enforceability is not Unbinding.
Contracts CANNOT be amended except as specified in the contract or by
the rules, and generally CAN be amended as specified in the contract,
except that other rules may place further constraints on the amendment
of contracts.
}}}
[In some cases the Notary won't know of a contract's existence; in
others e will but shouldn't report on it for various reasons. The last
paragraph is worded carefully in case a couple of people decide to agree
to the rules (which would make them a Loose Equitable contract), so that
it doesn't prevent the rules themselves being amended. Having the rules
as a contract being harmless is a better option than making it
impossible, as it improves the chances that other things can be made
into Loose contracts easily.]
Spirit (Power 2)
{{{
Spirit is an attribute of contracts, which is instantaneously
calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both (but
must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules specify what
values of Spirit are possible for particular contracts. A contract's
Spirit can be specified by a clear, unconditional and unambiguous
statement in the contract itself that specifies a possible value for
Spirit for that contract; if it isn't, it defaults to a value specified
by other rules.
The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with respect
to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only be initiated
with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect to Hidden
contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity case with
respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null judgement.
The Notary's weekly report contains the Spirit of all Public contracts
and Pledges, and the Notary SHOULD also include the Spirit of all Loose
contracts in that report.
}}}
[Let people agree to obey the letter or spirit as they will.]
Tightness (Power 2)
{{{
Tightness is a contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with a default
value of General and possible values of General and Specific.
The Tightness of a Loose or Public contract CAN be flipped by any person
without objection, unless it clearly, unambiguously and unconditionally
specifies that it is Specific. In additionally, if a document clearly,
unambiguously and unconditionally specifies that it is Specific, then
its tightness is set to Specific whenever its Enforceability flips from
Unbinding directly to either Loose or Public.
Whenever a contract's Enforceability flips to a value other than Loose
or Public, its Tightness flips to General.
/* The equity rule should also be amended to allow everyone to
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
ais523 wrote:
Quick transition guide:
Anything Unbinding (insufficient parties)
Unbinding Secret (private agreement)
Secret Hidden (informing the Notary)
Hidden Loose (publishing text and membership)
Unbinding Loose (agreeing to a contract that's been published)
Loose Public (all parties publically agree, it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Public (public agreement, and it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Pledge (public announcement, it specifies it's a pledge)
Maybe there should be a Public Loose too, but I'm not sure.
Unbinding - Secret - Hidden
||
|v
| Loose - Public Pledge
|^^ ^
||| |
+++--+
Much of this is confusing. I strongly recommend looking for simpler
means to the same ends.
Agreement (Power 2)
{{{
At any given time, for each document, each person is either not agreeing
to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that document, or
publically agreeing to that document; this is a persistent status that
can change only as described by rules with power at least 1.5. A person
who is publically agreeing to a Public contract or Pledge contract, or
agreeing (publically or privately) to a non-Public non-Pledge contract,
is a defined to be a party to that contract; otherwise, that person is
not a party to that contract. Member of is synonymous with Party to
for the purposes of contracts.
Proto-proto: Allow switches to be attached to sets of objects.
Agreement is a {contract, person} switch with values null (default),
Private, and Public. Changes to agreement are secured with a power
threshold of 1.5. A person is a party to (syn. member of) a contract
if and only if (etc.)
If a person announces that they agree to something without specifying
publically or privately, it is considered to be an announcement that
they publically agree. If a person states that they agree to something
without specifying publically or privately, and the message that states
that is not an announcement, it is considered to be a statement that
they privately agree.
To agree to a contract is to flip one's agreement for it from null to
another value; if the value is not otherwise specified, then it is
Public if the message is an announcement, Private otherwise. To cease
to agree to (syn. leave) a contract is to flip one's agreement for it
to null.
Notwithstanding other rules, a person is never publically agreeing to a
document unless they have announced that they agree to it (but might not
be even if they have done), and a person is never privately agreeing to
a document unless they have explicitly specified to at least one other
person that they do so, in a context that makes it clear that agreement
is meant in the sense defined by this ruleset in particular; the only
exceptions to this paragraph are that if a person was party to a
document before this rule was created, their agreement status with
respect to that document can alternatively have been set by the proposal
that created this rule, and that if a document is amended persons who
were agreeing to the document before it was amendment can sometimes be
agreeing to it afterwards, as described in the next paragraph.
Additionally, it is impossible to publically agree to a document that
has never been published. This paragraph takes precedence over all other
rules.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding:
a) A person's agreement to a contract CANNOT be flipped to Public
unless e has announced that e agrees to it, and the contract has
been published.
b) A person's agreement to a contract CANNOT be flipped to Private
unless e has clearly specified to at least one other person that
e agrees to it (in the sense of agreement defined by this nomic).
Continuity should be imposed by a rule that takes precedence over the
above, then repeals itself.
If a document is amended, each person agreeing to that document
immediately ceases to agree to it, unless at least one of the following
conditions hold (in which case the person agrees to the amended document
the same way they agreed to the original document):
* The person explicitly consented to the amendment, or supported
an attempt or intent to make the amendment, or attempted or
intended to make that amendment
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
person could have opposed an attempt or intent to make the
amendment, was aware or could have easily found out that such
opposition to that particular amendment was possible, was aware
of or could easily have been able to found out that there was an
attempt or intent to make that particular amendment, such
opposition required no effort beyond sending a message with no
side-effects
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
Pavitra wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. No, it would just transfer their assets to the Lost and Found Department (assuming that that clause was retained).
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 12:26:25 am Ed Murphy wrote: Pavitra wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. No, it would just transfer their assets to the Lost and Found Department (assuming that that clause was retained). with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. You would need the explicit consent of each party that owned any such assets, because they would have to pay the contract-asset fee (in effect) in order to leave.
