Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one. Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing precedents, especially given that it has to be safe. And I think those are good precedents which should darn well be codified. If anyone has simplifications though (including complete alternate approaches), I'd be happy to hear them. As soon as the safety concerns are dealt with, I'll see if I can come up with anything simpler myself. I thought playing with "timelines" was a really clever concept actually but I got bogged down working my way through various things that work due to precedents, to see if it codified them or changed them (sometimes "codifying precedent" makes something rigid and brittle that was formerly flexible or could be overturned, so that's the kind of thing I was looking for). I did find a (possible) technical bug or at least something that seemed off and worth asking about (will have to go look again to remember), though it was after the voting period when I did so. Speaking of those safety concerns, I'm a tad peeved that several people voted against the proposal on the basis that "this might be dangerous", including you, and yet no one seems to be able to explain to me exactly what danger is involved so that I can mitigate it. Yes, it might be dangerous, that's a dangerous area of rule making, and it's quite fair to have high standards. That being said, I'd like to know exactly what the standards are so that I can meet them. At this point it feels like people are saying "there might be problems" without providing anything approaching a direction I can go in to persuade them otherwise. Very valid point and I'm sorry about that - since I was in "voting mode" and not "editing a proto mode" I think I took my reflections on the complexity/inelegance and translated that into "this is muddling enough to me that it might be worrying". I should have translated as "let's think about this some more I'm not quite comfortable yet" rather "unfamiliar = omg danger danger!". (I still might have voted against this version due to the "think about it some more" aspect, but I shouldn't have been alarmist like that). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that > > provision I don't see how this could also be broken? > > > > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a > > list of changes that would be satisfactory? > > I won't have time to think on "deep time protections" for a while. But I > did read your proposal several times and (whether there's anything > explicitly dangerous or not) it honestly struck me as similar to your > comments about some of Jason Cobb's proposals - an inelegant and overly > complex solution to a problem that I'm not convinced needs it. > > (I can't point to any particular thing that's "wrong" that's just my > overall impression of the proposal as a whole). > > -G. That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one. Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing precedents, especially given that it has to be safe. And I think those are good precedents which should darn well be codified. If anyone has simplifications though (including complete alternate approaches), I'd be happy to hear them. As soon as the safety concerns are dealt with, I'll see if I can come up with anything simpler myself. Speaking of those safety concerns, I'm a tad peeved that several people voted against the proposal on the basis that "this might be dangerous", including you, and yet no one seems to be able to explain to me exactly what danger is involved so that I can mitigate it. Yes, it might be dangerous, that's a dangerous area of rule making, and it's quite fair to have high standards. That being said, I'd like to know exactly what the standards are so that I can meet them. At this point it feels like people are saying "there might be problems" without providing anything approaching a direction I can go in to persuade them otherwise. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that > provision I don't see how this could also be broken? > > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a > list of changes that would be satisfactory? I won't have time to think on "deep time protections" for a while. But I did read your proposal several times and (whether there's anything explicitly dangerous or not) it honestly struck me as similar to your comments about some of Jason Cobb's proposals - an inelegant and overly complex solution to a problem that I'm not convinced needs it. (I can't point to any particular thing that's "wrong" that's just my overall impression of the proposal as a whole). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
On 7/28/2019 12:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary. The way you've written it makes it sound (to me anyway) like explicitly withholding consent can override any agreement specified by the contract. When you say "includes both" there's no notion that one overrides the other and no clear way of determining scope of "consent" nor the relative precedence of different acts of consent. (this is an existing big problem with "consent" in general - this just seems to clarify it in a way that's a little broken). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that
provision I don't see how this could also be broken?
Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a
list of changes that would be satisfactory?
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
> consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
> that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created
> > with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent
> > of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that
> > or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join later
> > without further consent" constitutes the needed agreement.
> >
> > E.g. There's a contract between X and Y, and the text of the contract says
> > "Z CAN join by announcement." Y says "I don't agree to Z joining."
> > We don't have good rules to cover that, given that "consent" is something
> > that can be withdrawn (or at least has been held to be withdrawable).
> >
> > The current version is enabling ("CAN if") and this version is preventing
> > ("CANNOT unless") and that changes the weight of how giving agreement is
> > treated, and the relative precedence of past versus current consent.
> >
> > -G.
> >
> > On 7/28/2019 12:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
> > > being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
> > > so I'm not going to.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
> > >> based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
> > >> to do a complete re-write.
> > >>
> > >> Rough outline:
> > >>
> > >> - Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
> > >> several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
> > >> public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
> > >> the other categories).
> > >>
> > >> - Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
> > >> an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
> > >> but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
> > >> formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
> > >> withdrawn, etc.)
> > >>
> > >> - Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
> > >>
> > >> - Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold
> > >> any
> > >> currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
> > >> actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
> > >> finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
> > >>
> > >> - Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
> > >> (act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
> > >> changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
> > >> full text must be provided
> > >>
> > >> - Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
> > >> promulgation thereof.
> > >>
> > >> =G.
> > >>
> > >> On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >>> I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jason Cobb
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb
> > wrote:
> > > I submit the following proposal
> > >
> > > Title: Limited-party contracts
> > >
> > > AI: 2.5
> > >
> > > Text:
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
> > >
> > > Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert
> > > the
> > > following paragraph:
> > >
> > > A player generally CAN become a party to an existing
> > > contract by
> > > announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
> > > persons who can become party to itself, any person not
> > > fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
> > > contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person
> > > could
> > > not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
> > > become party to the contract, e is not counted as
> > > consenting to
> > > the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph,
> > > even
> > > if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
> > >
> > > [Comment: The goal is to resolve the b
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both
consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says
that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created
> with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent
> of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that
> or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join later
> without further consent" constitutes the needed agreement.
>
> E.g. There's a contract between X and Y, and the text of the contract says
> "Z CAN join by announcement." Y says "I don't agree to Z joining."
> We don't have good rules to cover that, given that "consent" is something
> that can be withdrawn (or at least has been held to be withdrawable).
>
> The current version is enabling ("CAN if") and this version is preventing
> ("CANNOT unless") and that changes the weight of how giving agreement is
> treated, and the relative precedence of past versus current consent.
>
> -G.
>
> On 7/28/2019 12:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
> > being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
> > so I'm not going to.
> >
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
> >> based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
> >>
> >> I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
> >> to do a complete re-write.
> >>
> >> Rough outline:
> >>
> >> - Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
> >> several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
> >> public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
> >> the other categories).
> >>
> >> - Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
> >> an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
> >> but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
> >> formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
> >> withdrawn, etc.)
> >>
> >> - Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
> >>
> >> - Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold any
> >> currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
> >> actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
> >> finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
> >>
> >> - Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
> >> (act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
> >> changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
> >> full text must be provided
> >>
> >> - Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
> >> promulgation thereof.
> >>
> >> =G.
> >>
> >> On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
> >>>
> >>> Jason Cobb
> >>>
> >>> On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal
> >
> > Title: Limited-party contracts
> >
> > AI: 2.5
> >
> > Text:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
> >
> > Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert the
> > following paragraph:
> >
> > A player generally CAN become a party to an existing contract
> > by
> > announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
> > persons who can become party to itself, any person not
> > fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
> > contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person could
> > not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
> > become party to the contract, e is not counted as consenting
> > to
> > the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph, even
> > if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
> >
> > [Comment: The goal is to resolve the bug that G. recently showed (with
> > the contract that states that it is impossible to join). This would
> > prevent such a contract by ensuring that it could never reach the two
> > parties required to create it. This also gives force to clauses that
> > purport to limit the set of parties.]
> >
> > }
> I'm sorry, but this is phrased in a vastly more complicated way than
> it needs to be. It's inelegant to add an entire paragraph to add a
> single, simple condition (you can't I submit the following proposa
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created
with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent
of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that
or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join later
without further consent" constitutes the needed agreement.
E.g. There's a contract between X and Y, and the text of the contract says
"Z CAN join by announcement." Y says "I don't agree to Z joining."
We don't have good rules to cover that, given that "consent" is something
that can be withdrawn (or at least has been held to be withdrawable).
The current version is enabling ("CAN if") and this version is preventing
("CANNOT unless") and that changes the weight of how giving agreement is
treated, and the relative precedence of past versus current consent.
-G.
On 7/28/2019 12:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
so I'm not going to.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
to do a complete re-write.
Rough outline:
- Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
the other categories).
- Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
withdrawn, etc.)
- Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
- Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold any
currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
- Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
(act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
full text must be provided
- Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
promulgation thereof.
=G.
On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal
Title: Limited-party contracts
AI: 2.5
Text:
{
Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert the
following paragraph:
A player generally CAN become a party to an existing contract by
announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
persons who can become party to itself, any person not
fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person could
not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
become party to the contract, e is not counted as consenting to
the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph, even
if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
[Comment: The goal is to resolve the bug that G. recently showed (with
the contract that states that it is impossible to join). This would
prevent such a contract by ensuring that it could never reach the two
parties required to create it. This also gives force to clauses that
purport to limit the set of parties.]
}
I'm sorry, but this is phrased in a vastly more complicated way than
it needs to be. It's inelegant to add an entire paragraph to add a
single, simple condition (you can't I submit the following proposal.
-Aris
---
Title: Contractual Delimitation
Adoption index: 2.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
If a proposal entitled "Limited-party contracts" has passed in the last
month, undo the effects of that proposal.
Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", by changing the text
"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
eir agreement."
to read
"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
both eir agreement and the agreement of all other persons who are or would
be parties to that contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That
being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now,
so I'm not going to.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
> based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
>
> I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
> to do a complete re-write.
>
> Rough outline:
>
> - Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
> several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
> public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
> the other categories).
>
> - Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
> an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
> but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
> formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
> withdrawn, etc.)
>
> - Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
>
> - Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold any
> currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
> actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
> finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
>
> - Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
> (act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
> changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
> full text must be provided
>
> - Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
> promulgation thereof.
>
> =G.
>
> On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> I submit the following proposal
> >>>
> >>> Title: Limited-party contracts
> >>>
> >>> AI: 2.5
> >>>
> >>> Text:
> >>>
> >>> {
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
> >>>
> >>> Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert the
> >>> following paragraph:
> >>>
> >>> A player generally CAN become a party to an existing contract by
> >>> announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
> >>> persons who can become party to itself, any person not
> >>> fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
> >>> contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person could
> >>> not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
> >>> become party to the contract, e is not counted as consenting to
> >>> the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph, even
> >>> if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
> >>>
> >>> [Comment: The goal is to resolve the bug that G. recently showed (with
> >>> the contract that states that it is impossible to join). This would
> >>> prevent such a contract by ensuring that it could never reach the two
> >>> parties required to create it. This also gives force to clauses that
> >>> purport to limit the set of parties.]
> >>>
> >>> }
> >> I'm sorry, but this is phrased in a vastly more complicated way than
> >> it needs to be. It's inelegant to add an entire paragraph to add a
> >> single, simple condition (you can't I submit the following proposal.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Title: Contractual Delimitation
> >> Adoption index: 2.5
> >> Author: Aris
> >> Co-authors: Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> If a proposal entitled "Limited-party contracts" has passed in the last
> >> month, undo the effects of that proposal.
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", by changing the text
> >>"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
> >>eir agreement."
> >>
> >> to read
> >>"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
> >>both eir agreement and the agreement of all other persons who are or
> >> would
> >>be parties to that contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
to do a complete re-write.
Rough outline:
- Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
the other categories).
- Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
withdrawn, etc.)
- Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
- Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold any
currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
- Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
(act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
full text must be provided
- Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
promulgation thereof.
=G.
On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal
Title: Limited-party contracts
AI: 2.5
Text:
{
Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert the
following paragraph:
A player generally CAN become a party to an existing contract by
announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
persons who can become party to itself, any person not
fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person could
not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
become party to the contract, e is not counted as consenting to
the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph, even
if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
[Comment: The goal is to resolve the bug that G. recently showed (with
the contract that states that it is impossible to join). This would
prevent such a contract by ensuring that it could never reach the two
parties required to create it. This also gives force to clauses that
purport to limit the set of parties.]
}
I'm sorry, but this is phrased in a vastly more complicated way than
it needs to be. It's inelegant to add an entire paragraph to add a
single, simple condition (you can't I submit the following proposal.
-Aris
---
Title: Contractual Delimitation
Adoption index: 2.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
If a proposal entitled "Limited-party contracts" has passed in the last
month, undo the effects of that proposal.
Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", by changing the text
"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
eir agreement."
to read
"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
both eir agreement and the agreement of all other persons who are or would
be parties to that contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > 4. Any player CAN create a gift in eir possession by announcement. > > 5. A player CANNOT create a gift by any means. On further thought, this version might end up being IRRELEVANT. A judge might say "gifts are a contract currency entirely tracked by the parties and it doesn't affect any Agoran records, so its up to the parties to use mutual agreement /contract modification to resolve this, not the Agoran courts." It might be on firmer ground if there was some Coin manipulation involved. -G.
