Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/27/20 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > So maybe we should "unify" underlying text control. In other words, say > "a legal body of text (LBOD) is a document that can be changed by [some > useful default methods]." Then we might make various texts (contract > texts, proposal texts, regulations etc.) into LBODs [ok not a great name > someone can think of something better]. > > That way we might simplify/reduce the mechanical text on how to change and > track the various types of documents, and keep the actual legal effects of > each document separate and written specifically for each purpose. I like this idea; maybe I'll write up a draft. > First-time drafts can often have a bit too much in them, especially if the > language its trying to replace is old and has accumulated a lot of edge > cases, which the drafter feels obligated to include so as not to open old > scams/bugs. But the second draft could be a review of "which of this is > *actually* needed right now. I think I'd try a round of clarifying before > complete abandonment. What did you have in mind for clarification? Dropping classes of regulation or just trying to shorten the text as much as possible while keeping general meaning? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/26/2020 11:11 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:29 PM nch wrote: >> On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>> Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 >>> Author: Jason >>> Coauthors: Aris >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >> >> Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with >> G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system >> that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections >> offered by bodies of law? > > > The underlying premise of bodies of law is that it makes sense to have > rules, regulations, and probably also contracts follow the same basic > framework. This unification in processing was thought to be inherently > beneficial. It's something we have been discussing for a while. I've protested a fair bit about language complexity, but I'm undecided on the framework overall. When Alexis first proposed I thought it was complicated, but also that all our arguments about things like R2125 had become a bit stale and maybe we should try out some whole new language. And from a judicial standpoint, trying to puzzle out what the new R2125 did for the first time yesterday *was* an interesting exercise. > That being said, if this adds complexity... Maybe we should reconsider the > whole project? Maybe these systems simply shouldn't be unified? One thought I had was to unify from a different angle. A lot of what I wanted when writing Auctions was simply a document control system, and regulations had a suitable one. E.g. "This is a fixed body of text with legal and controlled processes to change the contents, assigned to an officer to track, etc." So maybe we should "unify" underlying text control. In other words, say "a legal body of text (LBOD) is a document that can be changed by [some useful default methods]." Then we might make various texts (contract texts, proposal texts, regulations etc.) into LBODs [ok not a great name someone can think of something better]. That way we might simplify/reduce the mechanical text on how to change and track the various types of documents, and keep the actual legal effects of each document separate and written specifically for each purpose. > Jason, I know you've been working on this for quite a while. You've been > doing a lot of good stuff and the results are quite impressive. And I > honestly don't like suggesting that we not use so much good thoughtful > work. > > That being said, people's comments here have made me wonder whether this > entire affair was a good idea. Bodies of Law made the ruleset more > complicated. At the time I was concerned about the complexity but thought > the eventual uniformity that would result would make it all worth it. It's > starting to feel like maybe I should have listened to my gut and argued > against it. First-time drafts can often have a bit too much in them, especially if the language its trying to replace is old and has accumulated a lot of edge cases, which the drafter feels obligated to include so as not to open old scams/bugs. But the second draft could be a review of "which of this is *actually* needed right now. I think I'd try a round of clarifying before complete abandonment. -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/27/20 2:11 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:29 PM nch via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 >>> Author: Jason >>> Coauthors: Aris >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with >> G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system >> that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections >> offered by bodies of law? > > The underlying premise of bodies of law is that it makes sense to have > rules, regulations, and probably also contracts follow the same basic > framework. This unification in processing was thought to be inherently > beneficial. It's something we have been discussing for a while. > > That being said, if this adds complexity... Maybe we should reconsider the > whole project? Maybe these systems simply shouldn't be unified? > > Jason, I know you've been working on this for quite a while. You've been > doing a lot of good stuff and the results are quite impressive. And I > honestly don't like suggesting that we not use so much good thoughtful > work. Eh, no big deal. it wasn't too much work (certainly much less than talismans). > That being said, people's comments here have made me wonder whether this > entire affair was a good idea. Bodies of Law made the ruleset more > complicated. At the time I was concerned about the complexity but thought > the eventual uniformity that would result would make it all worth it. It's > starting to feel like maybe I should have listened to my gut and argued > against it. > > -Aris I don't really mind the bodies of law system, although I understand why people dislike it. Just, if the proposal is going to fail, I won't bother pending it and making the lives of everyone who has to deal with it harder. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:29 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 > > Author: Jason > > Coauthors: Aris > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with > G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system > that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections > offered by bodies of law? The underlying premise of bodies of law is that it makes sense to have rules, regulations, and probably also contracts follow the same basic framework. This unification in processing was thought to be inherently beneficial. It's something we have been discussing for a while. That being said, if this adds complexity... Maybe we should reconsider the whole project? Maybe these systems simply shouldn't be unified? Jason, I know you've been working on this for quite a while. You've been doing a lot of good stuff and the results are quite impressive. And I honestly don't like suggesting that we not use so much good thoughtful work. That being said, people's comments here have made me wonder whether this entire affair was a good idea. Bodies of Law made the ruleset more complicated. At the time I was concerned about the complexity but thought the eventual uniformity that would result would make it all worth it. It's starting to feel like maybe I should have listened to my gut and argued against it. -Aris
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 > Author: Jason > Coauthors: Aris > Adoption index: 3.0 Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections offered by bodies of law? -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/26/20 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/25/2020 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/25/20 7:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred. >>> Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans. Is >>> this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept? >>> (honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here). >>> >> Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more >> self-contained concept", but I can propose to tear out the regulations >> phrasing from the rule if you want. >> > Hmm. What is really wanted is a document that defines terms/procedures > without actually authorizing them. > > The good thing about using regulations is that is has a good level of > document stability built in (i.e. a defined tracker, and a formal public > process to modify). That's the only reason I used them. > > But the need to now add "body of law", "scope" is a minus, plus you've put > what look to me like unnecessary legalese (eg "Definitions in auction > regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified") that take the > point away from the goal of this of common sense interpretation IMO. > > This is something of an experiment, and (like we've talked about for Sets) > I'd like to avoid tweaking the experiment in a way that takes away its > experimental qualities (by adding back in all the Agoran legal cruft - the > absence of which is what I mean by "self-contained concept") until it > becomes clear through judgement or whatever that it's actually necessary. > > -G. > It might actually be possible to make it compatible by just striking the sentence about the definitions being as-if they appeared in the rules, without any other changes, and since the rules aren't supposed to directly reference auction methods. Would that be better? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/25/2020 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/25/20 7:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which >>> comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the >>> promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to >>> defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") >>> and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction >>> regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror >>> SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and >>> commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to >>> be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's >>> clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred. >> Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans. Is >> this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept? >> (honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here). >> > > Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more > self-contained concept", but I can propose to tear out the regulations > phrasing from the rule if you want. > Hmm. What is really wanted is a document that defines terms/procedures without actually authorizing them. The good thing about using regulations is that is has a good level of document stability built in (i.e. a defined tracker, and a formal public process to modify). That's the only reason I used them. But the need to now add "body of law", "scope" is a minus, plus you've put what look to me like unnecessary legalese (eg "Definitions in auction regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified") that take the point away from the goal of this of common sense interpretation IMO. This is something of an experiment, and (like we've talked about for Sets) I'd like to avoid tweaking the experiment in a way that takes away its experimental qualities (by adding back in all the Agoran legal cruft - the absence of which is what I mean by "self-contained concept") until it becomes clear through judgement or whatever that it's actually necessary. -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/25/20 7:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which >> comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the >> promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to >> defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") >> and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction >> regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror >> SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and >> commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to >> be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's >> clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred. > Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans. Is > this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept? > (honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here). > Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more self-contained concept", but I can propose to tear out the regulations phrasing from the rule if you want. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which > comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the > promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to > defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") > and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction > regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror > SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and > commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to > be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's > clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred. Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans. Is this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept? (honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here).
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/25/20 7:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/25/20 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2464 by replacing the final sentence of the final paragraph
>> with the following:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Each Tournament's regulations comprise a body of law. The scope of each
>> such body of law is wholly restricted to governing the play of the
>> tournament (including determining a winner) and placing binding
>> obligations upon those who have consented to participate.
>>
>> }
> Could we make explicit that each tournament's regulations comprise a
> *separate* body of law?
>
Fixed in local copy.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/25/20 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Amend Rule 2464 by replacing the final sentence of the final paragraph
> with the following:
>
> {
>
> Each Tournament's regulations comprise a body of law. The scope of each
> such body of law is wholly restricted to governing the play of the
> tournament (including determining a winner) and placing binding
> obligations upon those who have consented to participate.
>
> }
Could we make explicit that each tournament's regulations comprise a
*separate* body of law?
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
This is a draft of Regulatory Instruments, which was originally
submitted as a proposal, but had a few bugs. I'm submitting it here as a
draft for any further feedback.
Title: Regulatory Instruments v2
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 3.0
{
[The purpose of this proposal is to expand bodies of law to encompass
regulations, bringing them under the rules and protections of that
system. However, this also means that regulations will now always be
taking effect, allowing them to potentially do some damage, so please
vet this proposal carefully.]
Amend Rule 2493 to by replacing the first paragraph with:
{
A regulation is an enduring instrument defined by the ruleset, which
must be authorized by a rule (its parent rule) in order to exist. Unless
otherwise specified, the regulations of each parent rule comprise a
single body of law. The scope of a body of law formed from regulations
is wholly limited to the scope defined by its parent rule.
}
[The default of all regulations from a single parent rule being a single
body of law was selected as the least bad default, when compared to each
regulation being in its own body of law or with all regulations being in
a single body of law. The sentence about the scope is probably not
necessary, but is there for maximum clarity.]
Amend Rule 2614 by replacing the second paragraph with the following:
{
Emergency Regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which
comprise a single body of law. The Prime Minister is the promulgator for
Emergency Regulations and CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran
consent, enact, amend, or repeal Emergency Regulations, provided that
the intent to do so was also contained in an emergency message.
}
[The scope of Emergency Regulations is intended to be defined by the
list with a "CAN" that immediately follows the changed paragraph.]
Amend Rule 2545 by replacing the final paragraph with the following:
{
Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which
comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the
promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to
defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method")
and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction
regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror
SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and
commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to
be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's
clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred.
}
[This is wordy because it attempts to preserve all of the wording
currently in the auction rules. The "binding obligations" phrasing is
intended to incorporate all requirements from the regulations into
requirements by the rules, but I'm not sure how effective it is.]
Amend Rule 2464 by replacing the final sentence of the final paragraph
with the following:
{
Each Tournament's regulations comprise a body of law. The scope of each
such body of law is wholly restricted to governing the play of the
tournament (including determining a winner) and placing binding
obligations upon those who have consented to participate.
}
[Same here with the "binding obligations" phrasing.]
Amend the Rule with the title "The Administrative State" by prepending
the following to the first paragraph:
{
Administrative Regulations are regulations defined by this rule and
associated with an office, with scope wholly limited to what is
authorized by this rule. Each office's Administrative Regulations
comprise a single body of law.
}
[This only has effect if one of Aris's proposals has enacted this rule,
and should be compatible with either one.]
}
--
Jason Cobb
