Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
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.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
On 7/5/22 13:59, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I don't think we do. Let's discuss some options.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option A
> Adoption index: 2.2
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2618 (Promises).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option B
> Adoption index: 2.5
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts).
>
> }
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Option C
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-authors:
>
> Repeal Rule 2450 (Pledges).
>
> }
>
> There's a large overlap between these 3 rules. Even if none of these
> proposals end up passing, I do hope we can do something to clean up.
> Contracts could easily do the job of both pledges and promises, in my opinion.
>
> --
> secretsnail
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.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:56 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/22 01:03, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > That is, fulfilling these requirements in order to take the action by > announcement IS performing the action "with support", making it a tabled > action. The same applies to all tabled action methods. > > So what's left to answer is if ais523 tabled an intent to perform a > tabled action. Can an action that is not defined by the rules as able to be > taken with a tabled action method still be a tabled action? > > We come back to the question of what it means for an action to be > "performed by" a certain method. When is this evaluated? > > Suppose we have an action, X, we CAN take by announcement or CAN take by > another method, let's call it "by floopment". > > Is X performed by announcement? > > The answer is, well, that the question is malformed. The action CAN > certainly be performed by announcement. But IS the action performed by > announcement is an entirely different question. The action could be > performed by announcement, or by floopment, or maybe not performed at all. > Saying the action IS performed by announcement would be a mistake when > there is an alternative, that it ISN'T performed by announcement, that it > HAS NEVER been performed that way but may be at a later date. > > So when we are asked "is this action performed with support" the > interpretation should not be "CAN this action be performed with support" as > that is not what is being asked. What is more reasonable to ask "has this > action been performed through this method?" > > "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the > > following methods:" > > This is evaluated when the action is actually performed. Did the action > occur through the method of "with support", or another tabled action > method? Or, you could also ask, would it be? > > It's a simple to realize that if you were to take an action by > announcement, that action would be performed by announcement. That is, > hypothetical actions taken by announcement can be said to be performed by > announcement, when taken. The same reasoning can be applied to tabled > action methods, letting hypothetical tabled actions be intended. > > Suppose the opposite was true: hypothetical actions don't count, as they > haven't been performed yet by that method. That would still break tabled > actions and be harmful for the game, as no actions would be tabled actions > because no actions have been performed by tabled action methods before they > are performed. > > So, hypothetical actions that would be performed by a tabled action > method are tabled actions, whether or not you can actually take them, thus > you can intend to take them even if you actually can't, and ais523's intent > to take a non-rules-defined tabled action succeeded because it would be > performed by a tabled action method is taken. I do not yet judge CFJ 3971 > TRUE. > > > You summarily discard the option of reading the clause as considering > rules-defined authorization to perform it by one of the tabled action > methods without any argument against such a reading, which seems to be a > reasonable reading to me. You merely assert that it's a different > question, but when you argue that it's unclear what the text means, it's > not at all clear to me that it's not even a possible reading. > I'm assuming by "the clause" you mean "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the following methods:" As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as an action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be performed". As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests it to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being one. But considering it as an equally valid reading, we should look at the 4 factors from Rule 217. Game custom and previous judgements don't seem too helpful in the current situation as I can't find any good examples for custom and previous judgements would also be out of date with the rule change, though if they did hold that intents to
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 7/7/22 01:03, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > That is, fulfilling these requirements in order to take the action by > announcement IS performing the action "with support", making it a tabled > action. The same applies to all tabled action methods. > So what's left to answer is if ais523 tabled an intent to perform a tabled > action. Can an action that is not defined by the rules as able to be taken > with a tabled action method still be a tabled action? > We come back to the question of what it means for an action to be "performed > by" a certain method. When is this evaluated? > Suppose we have an action, X, we CAN take by announcement or CAN take by > another method, let's call it "by floopment". > Is X performed by announcement? > The answer is, well, that the question is malformed. The action CAN certainly > be performed by announcement. But IS the action performed by announcement is > an entirely different question. The action could be performed by > announcement, or by floopment, or maybe not performed at all. Saying the > action IS performed by announcement would be a mistake when there is an > alternative, that it ISN'T performed by announcement, that it HAS NEVER been > performed that way but may be at a later date. > So when we are asked "is this action performed with support" the > interpretation should not be "CAN this action be performed with support" as > that is not what is being asked. What is more reasonable to ask "has this > action been performed through this method?" > "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the > following methods:" > This is evaluated when the action is actually performed. Did the action occur > through the method of "with support", or another tabled action method? Or, > you could also ask, would it be? > It's a simple to realize that if you were to take an action by announcement, > that action would be performed by announcement. That is, hypothetical actions > taken by announcement can be said to be performed by announcement, when > taken. The same reasoning can be applied to tabled action methods, letting > hypothetical tabled actions be intended. > Suppose the opposite was true: hypothetical actions don't count, as they > haven't been performed yet by that method. That would still break tabled > actions and be harmful for the game, as no actions would be tabled actions > because no actions have been performed by tabled action methods before they > are performed. > So, hypothetical actions that would be performed by a tabled action method > are tabled actions, whether or not you can actually take them, thus you can > intend to take them even if you actually can't, and ais523's intent to take a > non-rules-defined tabled action succeeded because it would be performed by a > tabled action method is taken. I do not yet judge CFJ 3971 TRUE. You summarily discard the option of reading the clause as considering rules-defined authorization to perform it by one of the tabled action methods without any argument against such a reading, which seems to be a reasonable reading to me. You merely assert that it's a different question, but when you argue that it's unclear what the text means, it's not at all clear to me that it's not even a possible reading. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > > include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as > an > > action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at > Rule > > 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > > > > > > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > > Rules for performing the given action. > > > > > > You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > > means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > > rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > > significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be > performed". > > > > > > As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > > rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > > rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests > it > > to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more > > implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being > > one. > > > The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is > inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses > of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is > IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit > you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's > unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". > > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled action. It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated actions can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action method. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 7/8/22 00:03, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to >>> include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as >> an >>> action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at >> Rule >>> 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. >>> >>> >>> A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the >>> Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the >>> Rules for performing the given action. >>> >>> >>> You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" >>> means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the >>> rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is >>> significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be >> performed". >>> >>> As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be >>> rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the >>> rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests >> it >>> to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more >>> implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being >>> one. >> >> The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is >> inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses >> of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is >> IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit >> you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's >> unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". >> >> > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled action. > It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That > doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a > tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with > support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated actions > can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action > method. > > -- > secretsnail The action of "going shopping at the store" is not "performed by dropping a penny on the floor", because there's no possible way that the latter can result in the former. I think it's atextual to read this clause to consider possible future hypotheticals. The rules must be interpreted using their current text (or, for a CFJ, the text at the time of calling), not possible future text. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Do we need all 3?
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:07 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/8/22 00:03, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > >>> include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined > as > >> an > >>> action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at > >> Rule > >>> 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > >>> > >>> > >>> A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > >>> Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > >>> Rules for performing the given action. > >>> > >>> > >>> You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > >>> means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > >>> rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > >>> significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be > >> performed". > >>> > >>> As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > >>> rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > >>> rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that > suggests > >> it > >>> to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined > more > >>> implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there > being > >>> one. > >> > >> The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is > >> inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses > >> of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is > >> IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit > >> you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's > >> unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". > >> > >> > > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled > action. > > It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That > > doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a > > tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with > > support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated > actions > > can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action > > method. > > > > -- > > secretsnail > > > The action of "going shopping at the store" is not "performed by > dropping a penny on the floor", because there's no possible way that the > latter can result in the former. I think it's atextual to read this > clause to consider possible future hypotheticals. The rules must be > interpreted using their current text (or, for a CFJ, the text at the > time of calling), not possible future text. > If you were to go shopping at the store by dropping a penny on the floor, that would be performed by dropping a penny on the floor. It may be impossible currently, but Agora legal fiction can make it possible. The possibility does not determine if an action "is performed" a certain way. The judgement does not rely on future text, but on the current text allowing future actions, or rather, allowing intents for future actions, but not the actual actions to be performed. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3971 assigned to Secretsnail9
On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as an > action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at Rule > 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > > > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > Rules for performing the given action. > > > You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be performed". > > > As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests it > to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more > implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being > one. The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
