> Also, someone else asked why not allow the acting on behalf to be
> conditional: because restrictions breed creativity. In the past, Agora has
> had various methods of allowing for acting on behalf in specified
> circumstances. If you have conditional acting-on-behalf, then you can
> effectively create arbitrary rules-enforced contracts that way (e.g. "You
> can act on behalf of me to transfer you $X, as long as you have transferred
> me $Y first."). The goal is to create a system that can't be (directly)
> used in such a manner, forcing people to be a little more inventive.
I disagree. In my experience what really makes things interesting is
complexity. The primary use of these new-fangled agencies seem to be the
delegation of powers, presumably ones you don't want to deal with yourself.
But it doesn't seem that interesting to me to allow someone to take powers
without having restrictions. I can see a few extra uses of these, such as
dispute resolution. (everyone involved delegates power to some third party,
who then makes a decision enforced by the collective power of everyone
involved) But I'd think adding restrictions would make the game more
interesting and complex, not less.
Besides, there is a way around this restriction, using pledges. R2450/0
states that "Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense." So the
way around this would be to make a pledge stating "If you give X powers, I
will use them in Y way". But that's convoluted, and I don't think it's that
interesting. This would probably not be enough to make me vote against your
proposal, but don't be surprised if I later try to modify some of your