Michael Slone wrote: >How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules?
The essential features of both are that they bind all players and can only be created and amended by proposals. Anything that can be done with an Agoran Contract can be done equivalently with a rule. >In any case, this repeal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of >making more contracts into rules, we should be outsourcing more of the >ruleset into contracts, That's OK for agreements between subsets of players, but I disagree for anything meant to bind all players. I think we should have all such universal agreements collected in one place, and all subject to the same mechanisms, because they have the same needs. We have better mechanisms for rules than for Agoran Contracts: CFJ annotations, history annotations, identity numbering, and so on. To get Agoran Contracts up to the same standard you'd have to duplicate all the mechanisms that exist for rules, and then we'd have two parallel mechanisms doing the same thing. I also note that R1503 already says that the rules are a binding agreement between players. If you want to replace rules with contracts, well, it's already done. -zefram
