Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > > Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be > > people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person. > > We've previously defined classes non-biological persons (contracts and > such), and then had a specific instance cease to exist while the class > was still defined. I don't remember this issue coming up then (but I > might be forgetting something), and those were situations where we > specifically expected to knowingly encounter the issue at some point. When we had the R101 Rights, there were some rights that "persons" had. Then when "persons" were (later) defined to include some contracts, there was some hoo-hah that we couldn't regulate those contracts in certain ways (including destroying them) without violating their R101 rights - even if the contract would "terminate" itself via its own text, there was some opinion that honoring the contract's "suicide" would deprive it of its defined rights. So then we added a clause to the beginning of R101 that said "even if the rest of the rules define contracts as persons, for the purpose of R101, only biological-entities-that-could-communicate count". So that meant dying would take a person's R101 rights away.
Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?
twg wrote:
Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not capable of
thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to be a person and COULD
NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as "deregistering",
because that is the act of flipping a Citizenship switch to Unregistered, and non-persons
do not have Citizenship switches. Are there rules that would malfunction if this happened?
Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a potential
loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar reports. Not to
mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a party to a contract
that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so.
R2350 says:
Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is created,
nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be changed. The
author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who submitted it.
(emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal dies,
then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in one of the
aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory! Same for
co-authors.
Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the
organism dies.
And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies?
Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be
people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person.
We've previously defined classes non-biological persons (contracts and
such), and then had a specific instance cease to exist while the class
was still defined. I don't remember this issue coming up then (but I
might be forgetting something), and those were situations where we
specifically expected to knowingly encounter the issue at some point.
In any case, the simplest idea that comes to mind is interpreting
"person" as "entity that was a person at the time in question". And if
that didn't work, then we would presumably legislate whatever legal
fiction ("X was continuously a person during time period Y") was needed
to patch the gamestate, similar to the Annabel Crisis (for new players:
Annabel presented emself as a new player for a couple years before
revealing that e was actually a returning player, we eventually
legislated the legal fiction "there actually was a new player Annabel
who sent all those messages").
Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so long and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it would be sad, it's not a complete impossibility. Even darker, it may already have happened without us knowing. Greetings, Ørjan. On 10/29/2018 12:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: This randomly occurred to me recently. Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as "deregistering", because that is the act of flipping a Citizenship switch to Unregistered, and non-persons do not have Citizenship switches. Are there rules that would malfunction if this happened? Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a potential loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar reports. Not to mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a party to a contract that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so. R2350 says: Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is created, nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who submitted it. (emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal dies, then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in one of the aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory! Same for co-authors. Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the organism dies. And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies? Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person. -twg
Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?
Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so long and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it would be sad, it's not a complete impossibility. On 10/29/2018 12:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: This randomly occurred to me recently. Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as "deregistering", because that is the act of flipping a Citizenship switch to Unregistered, and non-persons do not have Citizenship switches. Are there rules that would malfunction if this happened? Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a potential loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar reports. Not to mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a party to a contract that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so. R2350 says: Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is created, nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who submitted it. (emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal dies, then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in one of the aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory! Same for co-authors. Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the organism dies. And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies? Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person. -twg
Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?
See: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3412 On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > This randomly occurred to me recently. > > Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not > capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease > to be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same > as "deregistering", because that is the act of flipping a Citizenship switch > to Unregistered, and non-persons do not have Citizenship switches. Are there > rules that would malfunction if this happened? > > Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a > potential loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar > reports. Not to mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a party > to a contract that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so. > > R2350 says: > > > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is > > created, nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be > > changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who > > submitted it. > > (emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal dies, > then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in one of the > aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory! Same for > co-authors. > > Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the > organism dies. > > And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies? > > Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be > people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person. > > -twg >
DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?
This randomly occurred to me recently. Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as "deregistering", because that is the act of flipping a Citizenship switch to Unregistered, and non-persons do not have Citizenship switches. Are there rules that would malfunction if this happened? Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a potential loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar reports. Not to mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a party to a contract that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so. R2350 says: > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is created, > nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be changed. The > author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who submitted it. (emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal dies, then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in one of the aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory! Same for co-authors. Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the organism dies. And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies? Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person. -twg
