Zefram wrote:
>> Other persons who participate
>> in Agora SHOULD abide by the rules, but do not become party to
>> them unless they explicitly intend to do so, e.g. by entering
>> into a non-rule contract.
>
> This seems contradictory. Entering into a non-rule contract does not seem
> like explicit intent to be a party to the rules or to obey the rules.
> It does involve intent that *the contract* be adjudicated by the rules,
> but (so far) that intent can be implicit.
Revision: amend R1742 to state that entering into a non-rule contract
constitutes intent to obey the rules, particularly R1742's "parties to a
contract SHALL act in accordance" clause.
> It's also unclear on which other things might make a non-player be a
> party to the rules. An explicit definition of "participation in Agora"
> might help here: maybe some instances of "player" in the rules should
> become "participant". The "SHOULD" should be replaced by a straight
> criterion for being a party to the rules-as-contract.
What's not straight about "explicitly intend to become a party"?
>> The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
>> unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, unless the
>> contract is the rules.
> ...
>> the judgement is in effect as a new binding agreement between
>> the parties, acting in conjunction with the original contract.
>
> A judgement in an equity case regarding the rules, then, is a binding
> agreement between all participants. But it's not the rules. So an
> equity case on it can't be judged by any participant.
Revision: extend the exception to all contracts whose parties include
all players.
>> All persons are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
>> to be the ambassador.
>
> Interesting rule to interpret under the contract regime. Under the
> current system, the rules regard themselves as absolutely sovereign,
> so (for the purposes of Agoran jurisprudence) this requirement would
> be binding on absolutely all persons. Under the contract system that
> you proposed, it's binding on players and some non-players, with other
> non-players under a SHOULD. Who do you actually intend it to bind?
Good question. I considered something along the lines of the following:
Non-players are bound only by rules that explicitly claim
jurisdiction over all persons.
The rules reserve the right to extend their jurisdiction to all
persons (players only have the right to cease being players), but
acknowledge that their ability to enforce this jurisdiction is
ultimately limited to defining the gamestate with respect to a
person (including revoking the privilege of playerhood).
(Side note: players should be explicitly granted the privilege of
remaining players.)
>>> You need to be clear about where
>>> contractual obligations are rooted.
>
> Not explicit, and I think it's not sufficiently clear.
All contractual obligations stem from Rule 1742's "Parties to a contract
SHALL act in accordance" clause, yes? Under rules-as-contract, this
clause becomes a generalization of Suber's Rule 101's "all players shall
obey the rules" clause.
