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
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
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
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: 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: 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
