On 5/22/23 14:33, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-21 01:28]:
>> Changes:
>> - Generally cleaned up wording
>> - Handle rice at Lost and Found
>> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case
>> where a person is in both the up and down sets)
>> - Use "CAN" for enabling
>> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than
>> "consent"
>> - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures
>> - Removed Fancy Caps
> I like the consent! It's fun to be able to use, e.g., contracts without
> them being referenced in the rule. Possibly, other forms of consent
> could work. This is an experiment in interactionless gameplay, do note.
The consent standard lacks any clarity requirement for contracts other
than "unambiguously". This is not sufficient when an officer has to be
able to evaluate every possible condition. Similarly, "reasonably clear"
is too vague for an officer potentially having to evaluate players *
rice plans conditions.
Promises would work with the new by announcement action (and it isn't
clear that it's possible for the execution of a promise to give consent
now, so this is a strict improvement from that perspective), and note
that they aren't mentioned in the new text.
I see no virtue in not mentioning contracts in the rule if they're a
part of intended gameplay.
>
> I should note as well: the rules mention consent elsewhere than
> just R2519, and not only in reference to actions. For example, R869,
> incidentally another Power 3.0 rule:
>
>> The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement
> without that person's willful consent. (R869, ¶6)
>
> Could we understand a Rice Plan as an agreement?
>
In this case the consent can be evaluated with respect to the action of
"becoming bound to the agreement".
Note that the clause is not enabling at all, and Rice Plans clearly
aren't agreements anyway.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
