On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 14:31 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome. [snip] > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; That last comma looks out of place.
[snip] > Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: > > Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be > binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Likely scammable; there's no requirement on what the persons are consenting to. You need to be clear that consent is required to the specific action of creating a pact as an original member, and also that consent is required to the specific action of joining a pact, and that it's impossible to create a pact with someone as a member if that person does not consent to the creation. I don't think this is clear enough at the moment (and historically, a contracts rule that doesn't explicitly handle both the case of creation and the case of a change nearly always ends up getting scammed). [snip] > Enact a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following > text: Does this actually need a power >= 2 for any reason? Contract law used to be at power 1.7, and never had any real issue there. Keeping the power low would likely be beneficial because contract law has historically been one of the easiest areas of the ruleset to scam, and scam protections have historically worked much better against power < 2 scams than they have against power >= 2 scams. > A pact is a contract if its full provisions and list of parties have > been made available in public, along with a certification or adequate > proof of their accuracy and completeness, unless its provisions > stated upon each occasion where it was posted that it cannot become a > contract. What about existing contracts that have previously been made available in public, but since amended so that, e.g., their list of parties is now publicly unavailable? [snip] > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions > as permitted by the contract's provisions: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a > specified recipient. I have an automatic uneasy reaction to anything that inherently needs to be able to platonically evaluate arbitrary conditions that can be specified without going through a proposal process or the like, especially if there are no requirements on explicitness, noncircularity, or the like. Even if there isn't an actual paradox available, you'll likely see paradox attempts for months, most of fairly low quality, possibly to the point of dominating gameplay. -- ais523
