Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
list of changes that would be satisfactory?
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
> consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
> that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created
> > with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent
> > of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that
> > or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join later
> > without further consent" constitutes the needed agreement.
> >
> > E.g. There's a contract between X and Y, and the text of the contract says
> > "Z CAN join by announcement." Y says "I don't agree to Z joining."
> > We don't have good rules to cover that, given that "consent" is something
> > that can be withdrawn (or at least has been held to be withdrawable).
> >
> > The current version is enabling ("CAN if") and this version is preventing
> > ("CANNOT unless") and that changes the weight of how giving agreement is
> > treated, and the relative precedence of past versus current consent.
> >
> > -G.
> >
> > On 7/28/2019 12:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
> > > being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
> > > so I'm not going to.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
> > >> based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
> > >> to do a complete re-write.
> > >>
> > >> Rough outline:
> > >>
> > >> - Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
> > >> several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
> > >> public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
> > >> the other categories).
> > >>
> > >> - Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
> > >> an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
> > >> but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
> > >> formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
> > >> withdrawn, etc.)
> > >>
> > >> - Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
> > >>
> > >> - Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold
> > >> any
> > >> currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
> > >> actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
> > >> finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
> > >>
> > >> - Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
> > >> (act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
> > >> changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
> > >> full text must be provided
> > >>
> > >> - Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
> > >> promulgation thereof.
> > >>
> > >> =G.
> > >>
> > >> On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >>> I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jason Cobb
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> I submit the following proposal
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Title: Limited-party contracts
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> AI: 2.5
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Text:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> {
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> following paragraph:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A player generally CAN become a party to an existing
> > >>>>> contract by
> > >>>>> announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
> > >>>>> persons who can become party to itself, any person not
> > >>>>> fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
> > >>>>> contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person
> > >>>>> could
> > >>>>> not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
> > >>>>> become party to the contract, e is not counted as
> > >>>>> consenting to
> > >>>>> the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph,
> > >>>>> even
> > >>>>> if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [Comment: The goal is to resolve the bug that G. recently showed (with
> > >>>>> the contract that states that it is impossible to join). This would
> > >>>>> prevent such a contract by ensuring that it could never reach the two
> > >>>>> parties required to create it. This also gives force to clauses that
> > >>>>> purport to limit the set of parties.]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>> I'm sorry, but this is phrased in a vastly more complicated way than
> > >>>> it needs to be. It's inelegant to add an entire paragraph to add a
> > >>>> single, simple condition (you can't I submit the following proposal.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Aris
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> Title: Contractual Delimitation
> > >>>> Adoption index: 2.5
> > >>>> Author: Aris
> > >>>> Co-authors: Jason Cobb
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If a proposal entitled "Limited-party contracts" has passed in the last
> > >>>> month, undo the effects of that proposal.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", by changing the text
> > >>>> "It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract
> > >>>> without
> > >>>> eir agreement."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> to read
> > >>>> "It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract
> > >>>> without
> > >>>> both eir agreement and the agreement of all other persons who are
> > >>>> or would
> > >>>> be parties to that contract.
