Here's an updated version to fix some of the issues in the first version:
Changes:
- G.'s suggestion ("regulation-creating entity" -> "regulation-creating")
- Regulation-creating -> binding
- Fixing omd's issue
- Replacing the last paragraph and list of Rule 1742 to permit contracts
to
Combined with "Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in
other requirement-creating entities.", doesn't this allow contracts to
decide whether rules-defined actions succeed or not?
Yes, it appears to. I will replace the contracts sentence with
"Contracts CAN permit or forbid
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN
> only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the
> methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given
> action. The entity SHALL
I thought of that, but that looks a lot like the name of an office. Also
gets pretty close to "regulations".
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 12:09 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Aris wrote:
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has
Aris wrote:
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
something.
"Regulators"?
Okay, I've updated my local draft of it to use "binding".
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
That actually makes a lot of sense, logically. The term binding is
only used in a few places in the rules, and, at a glance, I don't
think any of them would conflict with this.
-Aris
The purpose of Oaths isn't to define new actions, and the Rules define
the crime of Oathbreaking.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:51 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
That actually makes a lot of sense, logically. The term binding is
only used in a few places in the rules, and, at a glance, I don't
think any of them would conflict with this.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Maybe "binding"?
>
> "Contracts are binding", "Regulations
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
rules mwa ha ha.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
> If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
> them.
If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
them. It's true that there's no longer the total sinecure of Regkeepor. Rip
the ACORN, you will not be missed.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I simplified
Maybe "binding"?
"Contracts are binding", "Regulations are binding".
"An entity is binding if and only if..."
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
confused with regulations.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:24 PM,
I simplified regulations to the point where they're literally one
rule. I'm biased, but I personally think the "it might be useful in
future" argument means that keeping them makes sense at this point.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> That would require rewriting the
I hope we actually have a birthday tournament that works this year though
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:43 PM Rebecca wrote:
> tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
>> That would require rewriting the tournaments
tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> confused with regulations.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I'd
I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
confused with regulations.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
something.
-Aris
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
something.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Nice.
>
> I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities" like
> so:
>
>
Nice.
I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities" like
so:
"An entity is requirement-creating if and only if..."
"Regulations are requirement-creating."
"Contracts are requirement-creating."
Etc.
On 6/19/2019 6:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here it is. This one
Here it is. This one (hopefully) isn't a victim of scope creep. I
actually like this one a lot more because it's so much simpler.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
requirement-creating entities."
Amend Rule
Hey Aris,
Thank you for your message. It's very helpful to be able to see some of
your past experience and the knowledge gained from it. (Sorry, this is
awkward. Thanking people by email is hard :P)
After reading it, I realized this effectively became a (poorly executed)
attempt at unifying
Okay, I never like being the one to do this, but someone has to. I'm
honestly sorry to be telling you this. I like the basic ideas of your
proposal, so it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that based on my
experience, I believe your proto has a critical flaw caused by the
process you used to
Hmm I just realized that I would have to change more wording in order to
allow fines.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 4:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here's a proto-proposal. This fleshes out some ideas I mentioned in
G.'s "unregulation" thread. This is mostly brought on by the recent
issues over regulated
Here's a proto-proposal. This fleshes out some ideas I mentioned in G.'s
"unregulation" thread. This is mostly brought on by the recent issues
over regulated actions.
Sorry if this is a bit massive, but I _think_ it covers all of the
necessary consequences of such a change.
Outline
- A
24 matches
Mail list logo
