Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 08:18 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
> > All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
> > {
> > Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
> > A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
> > contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
> > party.
> > }
>
> change 'as' to 'if and only if' and I'm sold.
There's a power-1.7 rule which relies on being able to create
act-on-behalf obligations. That would block it. (Of course, you could
amend that rule too, as opposed to modifying the suggested amendment
here.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
>> {
>> Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
>> � � �A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
>> � � �contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
>> � � �party.
>> }
>
> change 'as' to 'if and only if' and I'm sold.
What I was trying to get at was 'to the extent that e is'.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Sucks The iPhone But I'm sorry On 2009-06-03, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Paul VanKoughnett wrote: >> What about private contracts? > > It was suggested recently, and I think I agree, that private > act-on-behalf authorization is generally a Bad Thing because it makes it > difficult or impossible to determine from publicly available information > whether someone's attempt to cause a Rule-defined and -empowered action > was POSSIBLE. > > Also, please don't top-post. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
> > All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
> > {
> > Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
> > A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
> > contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
> > party.
> > }
>
> change 'as' to 'if and only if' and I'm sold.
>
"if and only if *so* authorized," no?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
> {
> Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
> A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
> contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
> party.
> }
change 'as' to 'if and only if' and I'm sold.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
2009/6/3 Charles Reiss : >It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is party to a Public > contract explicitly permitting acting on behalf of the attornee. I think there is a bug in here allowing anyone to act on behalf of me even if the contract only permits, say, a contestmaster to do it. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
2009/6/3 Alex Smith : > An attornor CAN attorning to perform a specific action by announcement > if the attornee is party to a contract that specifically allows (...) Should this be "CAN attorn"? -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Pavitra wrote: > Where's that quote from originally? It sounds familiar. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/I_accidentally_X
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Ed Murphy wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > >> A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public >> contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a >> party. > > "I accidentally to a-d. Is this dangerous?" > CAN *act* on behalf, good catch. Where's that quote from originally? It sounds familiar.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Pavitra wrote: > A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public > contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a > party. "I accidentally to a-d. Is this dangerous?"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
{
Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
party.
}
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > What about private contracts? It was suggested recently, and I think I agree, that private act-on-behalf authorization is generally a Bad Thing because it makes it difficult or impossible to determine from publicly available information whether someone's attempt to cause a Rule-defined and -empowered action was POSSIBLE. Also, please don't top-post.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 12:09 +0900, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > What about private contracts? The proposal's specifically designed to prevent attorning via private contracts. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
What about private contracts?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 6/2/09 3:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:12 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> >
> >> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
> >> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
> >> on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that
> >> decision as defined later in this contract.
> >>
> > If that works, it shouldn't. And act-on-behalf needs an overhaul anyway.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal (AI 1.7, II 1, Title="Some actual
> > act-on-behalf legislation), and intend with 3 support to make it
> > distributable:
> >
> > Create a new power-1.7 rule with the following text:
> > {{{
> > Under certain circumstances (explained in this rule and/or other rules),
> > it is POSSIBLE for a person (the attornor) to perform an action on
> > behalf of another person (the attornee); doing so is known as attorning
> > that person (syn. "act on behalf of ", "act on > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
> > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
> > - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action,
> > and no rule forbids it, and
> > - The attornor is first-class.
> > When an attornor attorns, the effect is the same as if the attornee had
> > performed that action by announcement.
> >
> > An attornor CAN attorning to perform a specific action by announcement
> > if the attornee is party to a contract that specifically allows the
> > attornor (or any of a set of players that includes the attornor) to
> > perform that action (or to perform any of a set of actions that includes
> > that action).
> > }}}
> > In rule 2169, replace "act on the party's behalf" with "attorn the
> > party".
> >
>
> How about?
>
> Proto-proposal:
>
> Create a new power-3 rule with the following text:
> {{{
>Where permitted by rules of power at least 3, a person (the
> attornor) CAN by announcement attorn (syn. "act on behalf of", "act on
> 's behalf") another person (the attornee). The effect of
> attorning is equivalent to the attornor publishing a public message with
> the specified announcements to the same fora the attornor's message is
> sent to. A message's claim to contain a successful announcement of
> attorning for another person is self-ratifying.
>
>It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is party to a Public
> contract explicitly permitting acting on behalf of the attornee.
>
>It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is a partnership (and a
> person) and the partnership's text explicit permits it.
>
>When permitted by rules of power at least 1.7, it is possible to
> attorn without N objections where N is at most 4.
> }}}
>
> [Currently, R2169 permits acting on behalf without 3 objections for
> judges in equity cases, which the last paragraph would perserve (and
> allow a little lower-power flexibility.]
>
>
> -woggle
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On 6/2/09 3:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:12 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>
>> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
>> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
>> on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that
>> decision as defined later in this contract.
>>
> If that works, it shouldn't. And act-on-behalf needs an overhaul anyway.
>
> I submit the following proposal (AI 1.7, II 1, Title="Some actual
> act-on-behalf legislation), and intend with 3 support to make it
> distributable:
>
> Create a new power-1.7 rule with the following text:
> {{{
> Under certain circumstances (explained in this rule and/or other rules),
> it is POSSIBLE for a person (the attornor) to perform an action on
> behalf of another person (the attornee); doing so is known as attorning
> that person (syn. "act on behalf of ", "act on attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
> - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
> - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action,
> and no rule forbids it, and
> - The attornor is first-class.
> When an attornor attorns, the effect is the same as if the attornee had
> performed that action by announcement.
>
> An attornor CAN attorning to perform a specific action by announcement
> if the attornee is party to a contract that specifically allows the
> attornor (or any of a set of players that includes the attornor) to
> perform that action (or to perform any of a set of actions that includes
> that action).
> }}}
> In rule 2169, replace "act on the party's behalf" with "attorn the
> party".
>
How about?
Proto-proposal:
Create a new power-3 rule with the following text:
{{{
Where permitted by rules of power at least 3, a person (the
attornor) CAN by announcement attorn (syn. "act on behalf of", "act on
's behalf") another person (the attornee). The effect of
attorning is equivalent to the attornor publishing a public message with
the specified announcements to the same fora the attornor's message is
sent to. A message's claim to contain a successful announcement of
attorning for another person is self-ratifying.
It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is party to a Public
contract explicitly permitting acting on behalf of the attornee.
It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is a partnership (and a
person) and the partnership's text explicit permits it.
When permitted by rules of power at least 1.7, it is possible to
attorn without N objections where N is at most 4.
}}}
[Currently, R2169 permits acting on behalf without 3 objections for
judges in equity cases, which the last paragraph would perserve (and
allow a little lower-power flexibility.]
-woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Sean Hunt wrote: > Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Alex Smith wrote: > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if: > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and > - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action, > and no rule forbids it, and > - The attornor is first-class. Surely this should say "It is POSSIBLE to attorn if"? >>> Should be IMPOSSIBLE to attorn unless. >>> >>> I withdraw my proposal "Some actual act-on-behalf legislation"; I'll >>> repropose it after a while if nobody notices other problems. >> >> I don't see the purpose of the power limit. Is there a particular reason >> not to allow attorning for, say, contract-defined actions? Or are you >> worried about creating a possibility where none would otherwise exist? >> In that case, "The attornee CAN and MAY perform the action by >> announcement" should be sufficient. > The rule itself allows any action specified by contract. No, it allows contracts to grant power of attorney. It doesn't allow attorning to perform actions that are contract-defined, such as milling crops.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:43 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > >> Alex Smith wrote: > >> > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if: > >> > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and > >> > - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action, > >> > and no rule forbids it, and > >> > - The attornor is first-class. > >> > >> Surely this should say "It is POSSIBLE to attorn if"? > > > > Should be IMPOSSIBLE to attorn unless. > > > > I withdraw my proposal "Some actual act-on-behalf legislation"; I'll > > repropose it after a while if nobody notices other problems. > > I don't see the purpose of the power limit. Is there a particular reason > not to allow attorning for, say, contract-defined actions? Or are you > worried about creating a possibility where none would otherwise exist? > In that case, "The attornee CAN and MAY perform the action by > announcement" should be sufficient. Another bug; I was trying to prevent low-powered rules allowing attorning, rather than preventing attorning of actions defined by low-powered rules. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Alex Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>> Alex Smith wrote: attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if: - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action, and no rule forbids it, and - The attornor is first-class. >>> Surely this should say "It is POSSIBLE to attorn if"? >> Should be IMPOSSIBLE to attorn unless. >> >> I withdraw my proposal "Some actual act-on-behalf legislation"; I'll >> repropose it after a while if nobody notices other problems. > > I don't see the purpose of the power limit. Is there a particular reason > not to allow attorning for, say, contract-defined actions? Or are you > worried about creating a possibility where none would otherwise exist? > In that case, "The attornee CAN and MAY perform the action by > announcement" should be sufficient. The rule itself allows any action specified by contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> Alex Smith wrote: >> > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if: >> > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and >> > - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action, >> > and no rule forbids it, and >> > - The attornor is first-class. >> >> Surely this should say "It is POSSIBLE to attorn if"? > > Should be IMPOSSIBLE to attorn unless. > > I withdraw my proposal "Some actual act-on-behalf legislation"; I'll > repropose it after a while if nobody notices other problems. I don't see the purpose of the power limit. Is there a particular reason not to allow attorning for, say, contract-defined actions? Or are you worried about creating a possibility where none would otherwise exist? In that case, "The attornee CAN and MAY perform the action by announcement" should be sufficient.
DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Alex Smith wrote: > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if: > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and > - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action, > and no rule forbids it, and > - The attornor is first-class. Surely this should say "It is POSSIBLE to attorn if"?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM, comex wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Benjamin Caplan >> wrote: >>> �3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative >>> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote >>> on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that >>> decision as defined later in this contract. >> >> I'm not sure this kind of automatic action works, although I can't >> find any CFJs on it. > > I'm fairly certain it doesn't; an action required to happen by > announcement can't happen platonically. In any case, the Conservative > Party isn't even a person, I don't see how it can act on behalf of > anyone. It's a Legalistic partnership. Once one more person agrees to it, it will be a second-class person.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM, comex wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Benjamin Caplan > wrote: >> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative >> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote >> on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that >> decision as defined later in this contract. > > I'm not sure this kind of automatic action works, although I can't > find any CFJs on it. I'm fairly certain it doesn't; an action required to happen by announcement can't happen platonically. In any case, the Conservative Party isn't even a person, I don't see how it can act on behalf of anyone.
DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative > Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote > on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that > decision as defined later in this contract. I'm not sure this kind of automatic action works, although I can't find any CFJs on it.
