On 7/7/22 19:04, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 18:56 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). >>> >>> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges). >>> >> They all serve different purposes and are useful under different >> circumstances. Repealing contracts alone could be part of a >> reasonable attempt to restructure the game away from economic >> contracts, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. > We could probably do without pledges – those have hardly been used > recently (and under past rulesets, were a special case of a contract). > They could also be implemented *by* contract rather than in the ruleset > (i.e. we just have a contract that lets its members pledge to things). > > Now that contracts permit act-on-behalf, it would probably be possible > to implement promises by contract too, but they've been so useful for > agreeing one-time trades that it may make sense to keep them around > separately. > > (As a side note, another possible direction is attempting to implement > as much of Agora by contract as possible – possibly even to the extent > of, e.g., a charity that publishes the rules rather than a separate > Rulekeepor post. I think this has been discussed in the past, but never > implemented. It would have the potential to make the ruleset a lot > shorter, which might be helpful for newer players, but we'd still > probably need a lot of text to protect the proposal system and for > disaster recovery.) >
I think pledges should stay in the rules for roughly the same reason that I think No Faking should stay in the rules. I'd be against any form of eliminating offices for private recordkeeping (I'm sure this is not surprising giving the number of offices I hold, and I don't think shortening the ruleset at the cost of moving it lots of text into contracts is a beneficial goal. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
