Here's an updated version to fix some of the issues in the first version:
Changes:
- G.'s suggestion ("regulation-creating entity" -> "regulation-creating")
- Regulation-creating -> binding
- Fixing omd's issue
- Replacing the last paragraph and list of Rule 1742 to permit contracts
to regulate their own assets
If I see no serious concerns, I'll submit this as a proposal soon.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts are
binding."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities. Only as specified by the Rules,
contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions
that meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any
actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the
contract.
Replace the paragraph beginning "A party to a contract CAN" and the
following list with the following text:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
that the performance of them must include at least one announcement:
* Acting on behalf of a party to the contract.
* Revoking destructible assets from the contract.
* Taking liquid assets from the contract.
* The creation, transfer, and destruction of any asset for
which the contract is the backing document.
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as such.
The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding.
An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity
directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits,
forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the
circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3)
the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or (4)
the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity.
The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is not
regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that entity.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only
prohibit or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT
modify anything else about the action in any way.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be
performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods
explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given action.
The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that
are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of
some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 9:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here it is. This one (hopefully) isn't a victim of scope creep. I
actually like this one a lot more because it's so much simpler.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
requirement-creating entities."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
are requirement-creating entities."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in other
requirement-creating entities. Any actions that meet these are
regulated by the contract. Any actions that do not meet these
criteria are not regulated by the contract.
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is a requirement-creating entity if and only if the
Rules designate it as such. The Rules as a whole is a
requirement-creating entity.
An action is regulated by a requirement-defining entity if: (1)
the entity directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows,
enables, permits, forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the
entity describes the circumstances under which the action would
succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect,
modify information for which the entity requires some player to be
a "recordkeepor"; or (4) the Rules state that the action is
regulated by the entity.
The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is
not regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that
entity.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a requirement-creating
entity CANNOT add or remove ways of performing actions that it
does not define, but it CAN forbid or require the performance of
such actions.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN
only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the
methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the
given action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to
proscribe actions that are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action
of some requirement-creating entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Requirement-Creating Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 7:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Hey Aris,
Thank you for your message. It's very helpful to be able to see some
of your past experience and the knowledge gained from it. (Sorry,
this is awkward. Thanking people by email is hard :P)
After reading it, I realized this effectively became a (poorly
executed) attempt at unifying rules, contracts, and regulations under
one system (which I think is probably not a bad idea, but it needs to
be done incrementally), instead of what it originally was, which was
just to extend the useful concept of "regulated actions" to things
besides the Rules.
I'll submit a vastly simpler proto shortly.
To close, here's just some things I thought when reading your message:
I think you're probably going to have to take another go at it.
I fully expected this. That's why I submitted it to agora-discussion
first :).
Specifically, I get the feeling that you took your core idea and
started thinking of all of the potential problems and expansions."
What if someone tries this?" "What if this gets interpreted this
way?" "What if someone wants to try this and can't?"
Who are you and how did you get into my house?
the reason it's so massive is that you*tried* (and quite possibly
failed, because anticipating every possible consequence in advance
is basically impossible) to deal with all of the necessary
consequences.
Correction: definitely did fail. Pretty quickly after I submitted it,
I thought up some pretty bad logical consequences from it.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 5:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I think you're probably going to have to
take another go at it.
