Maybe we can keep "persons" as is, and make a new definition that pretty much encompasses everything persons can do? For example, adding something like "If a person CAN do something, an Agent CAN do so as well, other rules notwithstanding", and just refer to Agents for the Raybots.
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 5:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote: > On 5/20/23 23:30, Janet Cobb wrote: > >> In rule 2618, amend > >> {{{ > >> A consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified entity a > >> promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator. > >> }}} > >> to > >> {{{ > >> A Raybot or a consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified > >> entity a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator. > >> }}} > >> [It's an interesting philosophical question as to whether Raybots can > >> consent to things, so avoid the issue by making it possible for Raybots > >> to create promises by announcement even if they don't consent to them. > >> For what it's worth, rule 2519(3) means that the Raybot probably is > >> consenting, but it's better to make it clear.] > > What happens to such promises when the Raybot ceases to exist? > > > > > > Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause > problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is > or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die). > > I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just > sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for > issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and > future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems). > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
