root wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First, let me explain why I made these proposals outright rather than protoing them (which is what I'd normally do for proposals this complex); it was merely a technicality due to the paradox cleanup rule. I was making a reasonable attempt at resolving the paradox; I'd prefer it to be a watertight attempt, though. The Promotor caught me rather by surprise by distributing the proposals! (I felt that making the proposals would be considered a reasonable attempt at resolving the paradox, whereas merely protoing them might not be.) > > Judgements on CFJs called after this proposal passes > > are appropriate if and only if they would be appropriate > > if the Gnarlier Contract had never been a pledge. > > Ineffective. Proposal effects are instantaneous, not continuous. Where does it say that? > > > [Note: the ratification is intended to get the set of > > currently existing CFJs, and in particular the ID numbers > > assigned to them, into a known state. AI=3 so that this > > can ratify something without a rule specifically allowing > > it to.] > > What is unknown about the current set of CFJs? Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ. Murphy ignored the message, which was a reasonable action under the circumstances, and I was ratifying the docket that assigned ID numbers to the CFJs called after comex's attempt, thus removing any CFJ that comex may have created from the gamestate. > > > A partnership CANNOT register unless its basis and the > > text of its backing document are unambiguously known. > > I don't think this is necessary, since a partnership must be a public > contract to register. Changes to a public contract must be published > to take effect, so how could its basis or text be ambiguously known. No, but it has to be a public contract to be a person. I'm not entirely sure what happens if a non-person partnership tries to register, probably nothing but I wanted to be sure. > > > A partnership CANNOT peform an action unless it is > > unambiguous that its backing document allows it to do > > so. > > Backing documents define assets, not partnerships. Ah yes, I should have said "its contract". > > > Insert the word "unambiguously" before each of the four > > occurrences of "defined" in rule 2166. Insert the word > > "unambiguously" before each of the two occurrences of > > "specify" in rule 2181. > > It seems like it would be much simpler to legislate that contracts > must be generally unambiguous than to go inserting the word into every > other rule. The idea is to allow contracts to be ambiguous, but to prevent an ambiguity or paradox in a contract escalating into a paradox in the rules, in line with the judgement in CFJ 1980. This is probably not the only way to fix it. > > > (e) causing a contract to become a pledge or to cease > > to be a pledge > > Making it a contract change doesn't prevent the contract from doing > automatically. Also, this would allow parties to contracts to flip > the status on and off at will, which conflicts with the definition in > R2191. R2191 wins precedence, but it's still good practice to avoid > the conflict in the first place. R2191 needs fixing, I think. Probably pledgeness should work the same way as public-contractness. But you're right, this is bad practice as is. > > > Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by > > the Notary, with a default value of 'none', and a set > > of possible values which consists of all first-class > > players and 'none'. > > The possible values should be restricted to those first-class players > who are actually party to the contract. I'm not sure about that; the way I've written it, it's impossible to draft an unwilling player to contestmaster a contract. I don't see any obvious problems that would be caused by having a contestmaster not party to a contract; e can still only award and revoke points as specifically allowed by the contract. > > > The Scorekeepor's report also > > contains the contestmaster of each contest with a > > contestmaster other than 'none'. > > > > A public contract is a contest if and only if it has > > a contestmaster other than 'none'. > > """ > A public contract is a contest if and only if its contestmaster > is not 'none'. The Scorekeepor's report includes the > contestmaster of each contest. > """ Better, but I think it means the same thing. > > > Set the contestmaster of all contracts which were > > contests before this proposal passed to the > > contestmaster such contracts had before this proposal > > passed. > > "immediately before". The "immediately" is important. Because it's ambiguous otherwise? Ah, because you resigned as contestmaster from a contest and so it's currently a contest without a contestmaster, I hadn't thought of that. -- ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
