Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 21:45, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/16/20 3:17 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the > > long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts > > isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't > > betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the > > Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. > > > > So nobody became a Pirate. I suggest you all rejoin. I'm also adding the > > latest Parley patch. > > > > I propose the following Parley: > Since it was found that everyone did successfully join, this failed. And > afaict Falsifian never resolved either eir intent to amend with consent > of the party members or eir intent to ratify a version without objection. The original Plundership text just said the contract is amended if 2/3 of Pirates agree. No additional triggering action is specified. So, I think it was amended the moment the 2/3-th pirate agreed. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On 6/16/20 3:17 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the > long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts > isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't > betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the > Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. > > So nobody became a Pirate. I suggest you all rejoin. I'm also adding the > latest Parley patch. > > I propose the following Parley: Since it was found that everyone did successfully join, this failed. And afaict Falsifian never resolved either eir intent to amend with consent of the party members or eir intent to ratify a version without objection.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On 6/16/2020 1:31 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:17, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the >> long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts >> isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't >> betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the >> Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. > > It's not obvious to me that it doesn't work without a mechanism. > > R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it > only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law? > > - Falsifian > The mechanism is R1742's "publicly make an agreement among themselves" which is a natural thing that one can do, supported by the R2519 definition of "consent" that refines what constitutes making an agreement. The question comes down to what the default assumption is in R1742 in terms of who "themselves" are. When a person proffers a contract with no explicit join mechanism, is e "agreeing" that other people can "agree" with em via consent? My assumption would be that a public-posted contract posted with a clear intent that people join would allow joining. Interesting test cases (if a contract text has nothing explicit): if the author introduces it with "here's a contract that I agree that any player can join" versus "here's a contract that I only agree to joining with Player X or Y" versus not saying anything. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On 6/16/20 4:31 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it > only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law? Not yet, but I've been meaning to write that up after we try regulations. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 20:17, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the > long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts > isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't > betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the > Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. It's not obvious to me that it doesn't work without a mechanism. R2125 is what prevents actions without mechanisms from working, but it only applies to bodies of law. Is a contract a body of law? - Falsifian
