Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: >The database I'm working on in "FLR" format Ah, cool. Please show me (privately) a sample of your data. I'd like to see how to fit it together with what I'm doing. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Zefram wrote: Look fine to me in the ruleset. And since it interacts with other rule-defined things, rather than being sealed off from the rest of the game, I think the ruleset is very much where it belongs. Okay, we'll just have to disagree here. We did have an interim compromise: From R2114/1: A document is a cardbook if so designated by the rules. The Deckmastor is the recordkeepor of cardbooks; eir monthly report shall include each cardbook. [...] If there are conflicts between a card or element definition in a cardbook and the rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as if the definition were contained in the text of the rule that defines the particular cardbook. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Zefram wrote: I'd like to turn the whole thing into a set of annotations on the rules, which of course would appear in the LR and so be findable by subject. Heh, how did you know? Probably obvious. The database I'm working on in "FLR" format comes out looking like this: [Standard rule headings] [Standard rule text] [History, with previous rule version numbers hotlinked to previous Rule number texts, and Proposal numbers linked to proposal texts Laborious part: finding Repeal dates for rules]. [CFJ lists: List of CFJs which include this rule in their evidence, linked to CotC database. Laborious part: linking the right version numbers of rules to their CFJ citations]. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: >http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-June/002262.html > >In particular Rule 2067, 2071, 2076, and 2077, 2079, and 2084. Look fine to me in the ruleset. And since it interacts with other rule-defined things, rather than being sealed off from the rest of the game, I think the ruleset is very much where it belongs. But if you really wanted to banish some rule-force legislation to a separate document, I think it would be better to do it via a rule in the main ruleset that references the specific document (and says how it may be modified). That way at least the main ruleset would give some hint as to the subject matter covered by the pseudo-rules. >Admit it, as new Rulekeepor you're just trying to centralize and >consolidate your power :). Meh. Being new Rulekeepor has motivated me to study the ruleset more closely, and it's in my nature to immediately try to fix the flaws in it that are easily fixed. Hence the bits of recategorisation, and the proposed repeals of obsolete rules, and I'm also updating the unofficial annotations. I classed Agoran Contracts as an easily-fixed problem. I really think that all the regulations that bind all players should be readily apparent, preferably all in a single document categorised by subject matter. That document is the FLR. Related issue: I think the Stare Decisis document is difficult to use. When the principle of stare decisis was enacted (I was there), no real thought went into how to manage it. Now the bare list of CFJs is long and unwieldy. I'd like to turn the whole thing into a set of annotations on the rules, which of course would appear in the LR and so be findable by subject. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Zefram wrote: If a "subgame" automatically involves all players then I reckon that's not very "sub". Subgames in which participation is optional can be dealt with by contracts, of course. It's "sub" in the sense that it's a reasonble modular and separable part of the game, but integral to everyone's gameplay at that moment. I agree that the envoy is not a good example, and making it a rule is fine. But before you get rid of contracts as a whole, look at the ruleset here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-June/002262.html In particular Rule 2067, 2071, 2076, and 2077, 2079, and 2084. There was consensus that all of that text should have "rules force" (applied to all players, changeable by proposal only, had precedence within the rules) but that it was taking an awful lot of mess in the ruleset so could be nicely delegated. Admit it, as new Rulekeepor you're just trying to centralize and consolidate your power :). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: >In the current ruleset it looks redundant. It's there for whenever >we play "subgames", e.g. have money, land, points and scoring rules, If a "subgame" automatically involves all players then I reckon that's not very "sub". Subgames in which participation is optional can be dealt with by contracts, of course. As for the specific current use, the sole existing Agoran Contract doesn't look anything like a subgame. Even if Agoran Contracts are to be retained for subgames, I think the Envoy should be governed by an ordinary rule. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Zefram wrote: (Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole existing Agoran Contract into a rule and deletes the mechanism.) In the current ruleset it looks redundant. It's there for whenever we play "subgames", e.g. have money, land, points and scoring rules, or anything that we want to have the force of rules for all players (therefore changed by proposal) but containing so much detail about the minutia of the subgame that it clutters the ruleset. It was writting last year when we were playing cards last year, and every single card (50 of them) needed a 5 or 6 line description with Rules-foce. That was cluttery. So we outsourced it. We don't have any subgames right now. I expect we will want to. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Michael Slone wrote: >How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules? The essential features of both are that they bind all players and can only be created and amended by proposals. Anything that can be done with an Agoran Contract can be done equivalently with a rule. >In any case, this repeal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of >making more contracts into rules, we should be outsourcing more of the >ruleset into contracts, That's OK for agreements between subsets of players, but I disagree for anything meant to bind all players. I think we should have all such universal agreements collected in one place, and all subject to the same mechanisms, because they have the same needs. We have better mechanisms for rules than for Agoran Contracts: CFJ annotations, history annotations, identity numbering, and so on. To get Agoran Contracts up to the same standard you'd have to duplicate all the mechanisms that exist for rules, and then we'd have two parallel mechanisms doing the same thing. I also note that R1503 already says that the rules are a binding agreement between players. If you want to replace rules with contracts, well, it's already done. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
On 3/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole existing Agoran Contract into a rule and deletes the mechanism.) How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules? In any case, this repeal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of making more contracts into rules, we should be outsourcing more of the ruleset into contracts, leaving a core of rules managing contract law, the judiciary, and the legislature and declaring the rights of players. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) (Look, sooner or later somebody's going to become Speaker.) -- OscarMeyr, in agora-business
