Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin



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

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
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

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin



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

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin



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

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
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 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
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 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin



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

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
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

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin



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.


DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
...which proposal in the affixed message? :P

(I know the one you mean but I don't think it's unambiguous enough to satisfy 
R478.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:18 PM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> Oops, I sent that half typed. If I haven't submitted the proposal in
> the affixed message, I do so.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:13 AM Aris Merchant
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com 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.




DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb

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

2019-07-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
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.


DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:15 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 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'd be sort of interested in the CFJ interpretation of the current
rules.  For example, you could argue that if the players are making an
"agreement among themselves" based on a text that doesn't let them
join, they are in fact agreeing that they are not making the contract,
which is a no-op.

Also, the situation may boil down to the straightforward paradox "We
agree to join the following contract: {this is not a contract}".
Under your wording, a "hypothetical contract" stating that it is not a
contract is as paradoxical as a non-hypothetical example.

There's also a broader issue:  any time you let players create texts
freely that regulate CANs and CANNOTs (as opposed to dealing
exclusively in SHALLs) it's pretty easy to come up with paradoxical
contracts of many different sorts.  We may need some broader
protections:  this particular version of Contracts was originally
written assuming that only SHALLs were being put into contracts, the
additions that made asset transfers and act-on-behalfs POSSIBLE but
regulated by the contract text were bolted on without looking at the
issues more deeply (like publishing requirements and how to error-trap
indeterminate stuff).

-G.