Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 16:48, nch wrote: > On 6/12/20 11:42 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:12, nch wrote: > >> On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > >>> you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > >>> time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > >>> than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > >>> maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... > >> If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the > >> wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like > >> I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this. > > Did you mean to reply to the list? Feel free to add the list back in > > if you like. > > > > I mostly agree. Just wondering what to do if contracts start to make > > heavy use of the Referee's time. Then it wouldn't necessarily be > > Shenanigans. Thinking about it more, that seems unlikely to happen. > > > > - Falsifian > > Oops, totally did mean to send this to list. Thanks for catching it. Actually, I confused myself. I think you did reply to the list the first time. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/12/20 11:42 AM, James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:12, nch wrote: >> On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, >>> you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given >>> time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer >>> than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but >>> maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... >> If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the >> wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like >> I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this. > Did you mean to reply to the list? Feel free to add the list back in > if you like. > > I mostly agree. Just wondering what to do if contracts start to make > heavy use of the Referee's time. Then it wouldn't necessarily be > Shenanigans. Thinking about it more, that seems unlikely to happen. > > - Falsifian Oops, totally did mean to send this to list. Thanks for catching it. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/20 2:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... If anything this discourages pointing fingers, which feels like the wrong direction. I'd rather punish people for too many shenanigans (like I suggested in the Competitive Finger Pointing proto) than do this. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:18 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/11/2020 3:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > >>> Referee / CFJ system handle things? > >> > >> The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > >> every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > >> rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > >> allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > >> all onto the Referee. > > > > I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we > > should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I > > understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like > > this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would > > work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? > > > > Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > > you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > > time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > > than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > > maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... > > > > +1, the idea of auctioning fingers amuses me > I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but TBH it makes me really uncomfortable and I'd strongly prefer we didn't.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 3:28 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the Referee / CFJ system handle things? The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it all onto the Referee. I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... +1, the idea of auctioning fingers amuses me
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 2:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or otherwise. This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where almost everyone had an interest.) What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the Referee / CFJ system handle things? Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. future Notary here, I would definitely be interested in this.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:29 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > > > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > > all onto the Referee. > > I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we > should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I > understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like > this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would > work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? > > Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, > you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given > time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer > than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but > maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... I would strongly oppose this because it could lead to a situation in which people couldn't be punished. If we were going to limit this, I'd go more in the direction of giving the Referee to designate excess finger-pointings or grant Fingers at will. > > > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > > > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > > > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > > > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > > > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > > > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > > > of the penalty which could be an advantage. > > > > Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. > > Agreed, if you have customers for version 1 as written. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:56 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by > > announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any > > other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a > > person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or > > otherwise. > > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.) > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? It gives more freedom to contracts. > > I agree with ais523 that it would be cool to do more things by contract. > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > of the penalty which could be an advantage. This makes sense. What I think would be a solution would be to make the arbitration process more abstract but set the current limitations as the default while allowing contracts to set up other systems. > > I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of > these complicated things to make sense to use. > > *E.g. pseudo-blots that can be paid off by paying Coins to the > contract, with the threat of real blots if you don't pay them off. I like this idea. > > - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 11:19 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > all onto the Referee. I'd forgotten this point on the CFJ side. We had a problem with judges tending to punt/recuse on equity cases because they didn't want to take the time to dive into a whole new legal code for each case (makes sense). We ended up allowing judges to express judging interest on a finer scale (i.e. we had the rotation of inquiry judges, equity judges, and trial judges tracked separately) but with our small community the voluntary equity judges - not many - were overburdened and this contributed to the procedural difficulty of these cases. -G.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
> > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in > every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the > rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it > allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it > all onto the Referee. I like the idea of relieving the Referee's burden. I wonder if we should actually encode some relief in the rules somehow, because as I understand it, taking the burden off the Referee with a contract like this is an entirely voluntary measure. I don't know how that would work. Maybe finger-pointing fees? Actually, that could be a use for a limited asset. Call them Fingers, you pay one to point a finger, at most N Fingers exist at any given time, and they're gradually replenished somehow when there are fewer than N (auctions?). Not actually advocating for doing this now, but maybe if Referee load actually became an issue... > > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > > of the penalty which could be an advantage. > > Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. Agreed, if you have customers for version 1 as written. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by > >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any > >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a > >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or > >> otherwise. > > > > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > > almost everyone had an interest.) > > > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > > Referee / CFJ system handle things? > > Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really > interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. Oh, I just meant relying on the Referee and CFJ system as already encoded in the rules. A contract can already defer punishment to the Referee just by describing things as violations of the contract. (And the CFJ system can come in when the Referee's levy is INEFFECTIVE under R2531.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/20 1:55 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or >> otherwise. > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.) Interesting point; I'll probably just weaken it to a SHOULD. > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? The Referee and judges didn't necessarily opt in to being involved in every possible contract dispute (and it allows more flexibility than the rules currently do). And, if we end up using contracts more, then it allows spreading dispute resolution between more people than shunting it all onto the Referee. > Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss > to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its > own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain > of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on > that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction > occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size > of the penalty which could be an advantage. Interesting idea, but I don't think that needs to be in version 1. > > I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of > these complicated things to make sense to use. Fair point. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/11/2020 10:55 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by >> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any >> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a >> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or >> otherwise. > > This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. > (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where > almost everyone had an interest.) > > What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the > Referee / CFJ system handle things? Referee (or perhaps better, Notary) hasn't been tried and would be really interesting to do IMO. But that could easily be private contract, too. Issues with CFJ system: - as soon as you give a judge the power to actually change a quantity (other than eir judgement) you have to have a whole system for undoing or staying the effects under moots and motions. - and we don't really want to subject equity settlements to mass voting like through a moot. Maybe an Appeals court would be fine there. - the CFJ system is set up for all the evidence generally being assembled by the first caller (with optional/unregulated gratuitous additions when practical). The multi-step process of "let the plaintiff speak, then let the defendant respond, etc." with 4 days between each step or whatever led to delays but also lacks of response. I think if you rephrase the process as a "referee-led mediation" it would allow the whole thing to be hashed out more naturally during discussion (possibly privately). - previously we included standing - random non-party couldn't start a CFJ that a contract had been breached if the parties were happy. But in Agora, people couldn't resist - you got overrides like third-party inquiry CFJs that said "true/false the contract has been platonically breached even if the parties are happy". I think keeping it in the referee (or Notary) domain would emphasize the separation. There were benefits and it was fun, don't get me wrong, but those are reasons I'd try out a more mediation-driven process (either rules based/notary led, or through contract - no bias there)
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by > announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any > other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a > person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or > otherwise. This puts the Arbitrator in a tough spot if everyone has an interest. (I think it was mentioned equity cases in the past had a problem where almost everyone had an interest.) What is the advantage of arbitration by contract over just having the Referee / CFJ system handle things? I agree with ais523 that it would be cool to do more things by contract. Here's a thought. Punishing contract members with blots is a net loss to parties to that contract. Maybe a contract would wish to have its own punishment mechanism where the loss of the convicted is the gain of the other parties*. They would need some way to make decisions on that. They could use the CFJ system to determine whether an infraction occurred, but the Arbitration contract offers discretion in the size of the penalty which could be an advantage. I'm not sure we've been using contracts heavily enough yet for any of these complicated things to make sense to use. *E.g. pseudo-blots that can be paid off by paying Coins to the contract, with the threat of real blots if you don't pay them off. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/10/20 9:53 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/10/20 9:14 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/10/2020 2:54 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:37 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion >>> wrote: Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does not place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like thing. (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) >>> I want to go on record as saying that I prefer to have things in the >>> ruleset. I don't have the energy for a real argument for it right now >>> though. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >> I generally agree with Aris. I think it's situational. Stuff like this >> arbitration contract belongs in contracts, but stuff like Cards belongs >> in the ruleset. In my opinion, at least. > I honestly think everything that doesn't effect everyone and doesn't > require high Power to work should be out of the ruleset. I've been > considering proposing moving Honour out of it. > > I guess I should say why. I think this allows us to continue to experiment with these side things iteratively with low risk to the more 'core' rules and game play. Plus contracts are effectively immune to the Sets economy, they can be amended without pends. Both of those reasons let's us experiment with them without potentially breaking anything we care a lot about.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/10/20 9:14 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/10/2020 2:54 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:37 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't >>> want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy >>> things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does >>> not place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular >>> contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like thing. >>> >>> (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The >>> issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting >>> power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) >> I want to go on record as saying that I prefer to have things in the >> ruleset. I don't have the energy for a real argument for it right now >> though. >> >> -Aris >> > I generally agree with Aris. I think it's situational. Stuff like this > arbitration contract belongs in contracts, but stuff like Cards belongs > in the ruleset. In my opinion, at least. I honestly think everything that doesn't effect everyone and doesn't require high Power to work should be out of the ruleset. I've been considering proposing moving Honour out of it.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/10/2020 2:54 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:37 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does not place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like thing. (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) I want to go on record as saying that I prefer to have things in the ruleset. I don't have the energy for a real argument for it right now though. -Aris I generally agree with Aris. I think it's situational. Stuff like this arbitration contract belongs in contracts, but stuff like Cards belongs in the ruleset. In my opinion, at least.
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
I'm up for it. While I agree that in a stricter sense it would be better for it all to be in the Ruleset, this just seems a lot more fun. It's not much but once you're ready I'll add my humble agoran occult shop to it. I'd maybe put up some regular shop rules (and they're extreme fringe/scam cases but they'd be fun to have). For example: - Stealing: Gaining a certain asset without paying for its price is a something something crime - Vandalism: Causing a Shop Contract to be amended without something something is a something something crime - Arson: Causing a Shop Contract to destroy itself without being its original creator is a something something crime. On Wednesday, June 10, 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:37 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, > don't want two major reforms at once!): replace all the > contract/promise/pledgy things with a contract-like thing which allows > acting on behalf but does not place SHALL requirements. Then define > promises, pledges, regular contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like > thing. > > > > (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The > issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting > power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) > > I want to go on record as saying that I prefer to have things in the > ruleset. I don't have the energy for a real argument for it right now > though. > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:37 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't > want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy > things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does not > place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular contracts, > etc. in using the new contract-like thing. > > (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The issue > here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting power > (including Blot penalties) and wins.) I want to go on record as saying that I prefer to have things in the ruleset. I don't have the energy for a real argument for it right now though. -Aris
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Wednesday, 10 June 2020, 02:04:58 GMT+1, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute > resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in > the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals > mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other > than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off > of the referee. > > I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they > actually consider using this in their contracts? This general idea strikes me as a great way to do equity; it doesn't have to be in the rules at all, a contract can define it just fine. Perhaps we could even have two competing arbitration associations, one for "here, have X blots" rapid-fire justice, one for "something went wrong, here's how we're fixing it" more equitable justice. In general I'm in favour of having major gameplay mechanics in contracts rather than in the rules, if it allows the rules to be shorter and simpler; that way, players don't have to "opt in" to all the gameplay mechanics at once, but rather only those that they're interested in. (I was planning a fairly radical reform along those lines a long time ago, but never got around to it because I couldn't make it work; this implies a way to make it work.) Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does not place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like thing. (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/9/20 9:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Fixed. Clearly I need to improve my vim schools, as this is just > embarrassing at this point :). > > *skills* /me is disappointed in my self -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/9/20 9:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute
>> resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in
>> the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals
>> mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other
>> than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off
>> of the referee.
>>
>> I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they
>> actually consider using this in their contracts?
> I like this idea, but I'm not sufficiently involved in the contract
> business to know whether I'll ever use it.
Thanks, that's a good data point.
>
>> THE AGORAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)
>>
>> {
>>
>> # SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
>>
>> This contract is known as the Agoran Arbitration Association, or as AAA.
>> The purpose of this contract is to provide independent dispute
>> resolution services for other contracts.
>>
>> # SECTION 2: OPT-IN
>>
>> A contract is opted-in to AAA if:
>> - all of its members are party to this contract;
>> - it specifies that all of its members consent to being party to this
>> contract;
>> - it contains phrasing that requires all of its members to be parties to
>> this contract.
> Are these connected by AND's or OR's?
Ands. Fixed.
>
>> Each party to this contract consents to each other party acting on eir
>> behalf to create blots when explicitly and unambiguous authorized by
>> this contract.
> unambiguous*ly*
Thanks, fixed.
>
>> # SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT
>>
>> The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract has been
>> party to this contract for the longest time. The Purse is a natural
>> switch tracked by the Head Arbitrator.
> The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract *who*
> has been party to this contract for the longest time.
>
> Additionally, should it be continuously or cumulatively?
Fixed, and good question. I guess I'll go with continuously - if I'm
copying this much from NAX, I might as well copy that detail, too.
>
>> At least once per week, the Head Arbitrator SHALL publish a list of
>> recently updated Arbitration Cases. In the same message, e CAN, by
>> announcement, transfer up to N coins from this contract to emself, where
>> N is the value of the Purse. When doing so, the Purse is decreased by
>> the number of coins transferred.
>>
>> # SECTION 4: ARBITRATION CASES
>>
>> An Arbitration Case is a matter arising from an alleged violation of a
>> contract. Arbitrator is an untracked switch possessed by Arbitration
>> Cases with possible values of any party to this contract and
>> "unassigned" (default). To assign an Arbitration Case to a person is to
>> flip its Arbitrator to that person. State is an untracked switch
>> possessed by Arbitration Cases with possible values "open" (default) and
>> "closed".
>>
>> The following must be specified when creating an Arbitration Case: the
>> relevant action, the relevant contract, and the alleged perpetrator.
>>
>> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
>> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
>> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
>> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> # SECTION 5: CASE INITIATION
>>
>> A party to this contract CAN, by paying a fee of 5 coins to this
>> contract, invoke arbitration, specifying:
>> - an opted-in contract;
>> - an alleged violation of that contract; and
>> - the alleged perpetrator (who is a party to that contract).
> Should we allow it to occur against people who are no longer parties
> but were formerly parties?
This should be resolved by just not allowing people to leave unless e is
party to no opted-in contract (described below). This shouldn't happen
in the middle of a dispute unless the relevant contract ceases to be
exist or opts-out.
>
>> When arbitration is invoked, a new open Arbitration Case is created with
>> the specified action, contract, and perpretrator, and the Purse is
>> increased by 1.
>>
>> # SECTION 6: CASE RESOLUTION
>>
>> This section authorizes parties to act on behalf of other parties to
>> create blots, and is the only section that does so.
>>
>> The Punishment Limit of an Arbitration Case is a number of blots
>> specified by the relevant contract for the alleged violation, or 5
>> otherwise.
> Could we make it 4 otherwise to line up with the maximum unspecified
> value in the rules?
Sure, done.
>
>> The Arbitrator of an open Arbitration Case CAN, and SHALL in a timely
>> fashion after being assigned, resolve that Arbitration Case by publicly
>> doing the following:
>> - determining whether the action alleged to be a violation occurred;
>> - if the action occurred, determining whether it violated the
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute
> resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in
> the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals
> mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other
> than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off
> of the referee.
>
> I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they
> actually consider using this in their contracts?
I like this idea, but I'm not sufficiently involved in the contract
business to know whether I'll ever use it.
>
> THE AGORAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)
>
> {
>
> # SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
>
> This contract is known as the Agoran Arbitration Association, or as AAA.
> The purpose of this contract is to provide independent dispute
> resolution services for other contracts.
>
> # SECTION 2: OPT-IN
>
> A contract is opted-in to AAA if:
> - all of its members are party to this contract;
> - it specifies that all of its members consent to being party to this
> contract;
> - it contains phrasing that requires all of its members to be parties to
> this contract.
Are these connected by AND's or OR's?
>
> Each party to this contract consents to each other party acting on eir
> behalf to create blots when explicitly and unambiguous authorized by
> this contract.
unambiguous*ly*
>
> # SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT
>
> The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract has been
> party to this contract for the longest time. The Purse is a natural
> switch tracked by the Head Arbitrator.
The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract *who*
has been party to this contract for the longest time.
Additionally, should it be continuously or cumulatively?
>
> At least once per week, the Head Arbitrator SHALL publish a list of
> recently updated Arbitration Cases. In the same message, e CAN, by
> announcement, transfer up to N coins from this contract to emself, where
> N is the value of the Purse. When doing so, the Purse is decreased by
> the number of coins transferred.
>
> # SECTION 4: ARBITRATION CASES
>
> An Arbitration Case is a matter arising from an alleged violation of a
> contract. Arbitrator is an untracked switch possessed by Arbitration
> Cases with possible values of any party to this contract and
> "unassigned" (default). To assign an Arbitration Case to a person is to
> flip its Arbitrator to that person. State is an untracked switch
> possessed by Arbitration Cases with possible values "open" (default) and
> "closed".
>
> The following must be specified when creating an Arbitration Case: the
> relevant action, the relevant contract, and the alleged perpetrator.
>
> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
> otherwise.
>
> # SECTION 5: CASE INITIATION
>
> A party to this contract CAN, by paying a fee of 5 coins to this
> contract, invoke arbitration, specifying:
> - an opted-in contract;
> - an alleged violation of that contract; and
> - the alleged perpetrator (who is a party to that contract).
Should we allow it to occur against people who are no longer parties
but were formerly parties?
>
> When arbitration is invoked, a new open Arbitration Case is created with
> the specified action, contract, and perpretrator, and the Purse is
> increased by 1.
>
> # SECTION 6: CASE RESOLUTION
>
> This section authorizes parties to act on behalf of other parties to
> create blots, and is the only section that does so.
>
> The Punishment Limit of an Arbitration Case is a number of blots
> specified by the relevant contract for the alleged violation, or 5
> otherwise.
Could we make it 4 otherwise to line up with the maximum unspecified
value in the rules?
>
> The Arbitrator of an open Arbitration Case CAN, and SHALL in a timely
> fashion after being assigned, resolve that Arbitration Case by publicly
> doing the following:
> - determining whether the action alleged to be a violation occurred;
> - if the action occurred, determining whether it violated the contract
> specified at initiation;
This needs a connecting conjunction.
>
> In the same message as e closes an Arbitration Case, and if e determined
> that the relevant action occurred and was a violation, the Arbitrator
> CAN cause the perpetrator to grant emself a specified number of blots
> that is between 0 and the Punishment Limit for that case.
>
> In a timely fashion after resolving an Arbitration Case, the Arbitrator
> for that case CAN once, by announcement, transfer 4 coins from this
> contract to emself.
>
> When an Arbitration Case is resolved, it becomes closed.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
How does one join this
DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute
resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in
the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals
mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other
than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off
of the referee.
I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they
actually consider using this in their contracts?
THE AGORAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)
{
# SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This contract is known as the Agoran Arbitration Association, or as AAA.
The purpose of this contract is to provide independent dispute
resolution services for other contracts.
# SECTION 2: OPT-IN
A contract is opted-in to AAA if:
- all of its members are party to this contract;
- it specifies that all of its members consent to being party to this
contract;
- it contains phrasing that requires all of its members to be parties to
this contract.
Each party to this contract consents to each other party acting on eir
behalf to create blots when explicitly and unambiguous authorized by
this contract.
# SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT
The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract has been
party to this contract for the longest time. The Purse is a natural
switch tracked by the Head Arbitrator.
At least once per week, the Head Arbitrator SHALL publish a list of
recently updated Arbitration Cases. In the same message, e CAN, by
announcement, transfer up to N coins from this contract to emself, where
N is the value of the Purse. When doing so, the Purse is decreased by
the number of coins transferred.
# SECTION 4: ARBITRATION CASES
An Arbitration Case is a matter arising from an alleged violation of a
contract. Arbitrator is an untracked switch possessed by Arbitration
Cases with possible values of any party to this contract and
"unassigned" (default). To assign an Arbitration Case to a person is to
flip its Arbitrator to that person. State is an untracked switch
possessed by Arbitration Cases with possible values "open" (default) and
"closed".
The following must be specified when creating an Arbitration Case: the
relevant action, the relevant contract, and the alleged perpetrator.
When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
otherwise.
# SECTION 5: CASE INITIATION
A party to this contract CAN, by paying a fee of 5 coins to this
contract, invoke arbitration, specifying:
- an opted-in contract;
- an alleged violation of that contract; and
- the alleged perpetrator (who is a party to that contract).
When arbitration is invoked, a new open Arbitration Case is created with
the specified action, contract, and perpretrator, and the Purse is
increased by 1.
# SECTION 6: CASE RESOLUTION
This section authorizes parties to act on behalf of other parties to
create blots, and is the only section that does so.
The Punishment Limit of an Arbitration Case is a number of blots
specified by the relevant contract for the alleged violation, or 5
otherwise.
The Arbitrator of an open Arbitration Case CAN, and SHALL in a timely
fashion after being assigned, resolve that Arbitration Case by publicly
doing the following:
- determining whether the action alleged to be a violation occurred;
- if the action occurred, determining whether it violated the contract
specified at initiation;
In the same message as e closes an Arbitration Case, and if e determined
that the relevant action occurred and was a violation, the Arbitrator
CAN cause the perpetrator to grant emself a specified number of blots
that is between 0 and the Punishment Limit for that case.
In a timely fashion after resolving an Arbitration Case, the Arbitrator
for that case CAN once, by announcement, transfer 4 coins from this
contract to emself.
When an Arbitration Case is resolved, it becomes closed.
}
--
Jason Cobb
