On Wednesday, 10 June 2020, 02:04:58 GMT+1, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute > resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in > the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals > mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other > than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off > of the referee. > > I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they > actually consider using this in their contracts?
This general idea strikes me as a great way to do equity; it doesn't have to be in the rules at all, a contract can define it just fine. Perhaps we could even have two competing arbitration associations, one for "here, have X blots" rapid-fire justice, one for "something went wrong, here's how we're fixing it" more equitable justice. In general I'm in favour of having major gameplay mechanics in contracts rather than in the rules, if it allows the rules to be shorter and simpler; that way, players don't have to "opt in" to all the gameplay mechanics at once, but rather only those that they're interested in. (I was planning a fairly radical reform along those lines a long time ago, but never got around to it because I couldn't make it work; this implies a way to make it work.) Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does not place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like thing. (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) -- ais523
