Re: [s-d] [s-b] If we're going to keep taking game actions through the emergency...

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Jamie Dallaire
>> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Jamie Dallaire
>> >> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > neo-dadaist alliance sounds interesting. Question (also applies to
>> >> > pocketbook party): What happens when parties are modifying their
>> >> platforms
>> >> > through the voting period? If a half of the parties add a given
>> proposal
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> Your obligation changes, of course.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then this contract needs to be changed somehow before I ever agree to
>> join
>> > it. It would be ridiculous if someone were to change their platform at
>> the
>> > end of the voting period, resulting in other parties not fulfilling
>> their
>> > obligations simply because they weren't present in that short time
>> window
>> > before the end of nday 12. This has potential for infinitely short time
>> > windows.
>>
>> As the only party I will happily not object to me changing it, if you
>> have a suggestion.
>
>
> First thing that comes to mind would be to make vote obligations contingent
> upon the state of parties' platforms at the start of nday 11 or so. Gives
> everyone time to set up their platforms as they wish. New parties who join
> during the voting period but after nday 11 just don't count for the nweek's
> voting.
>
>>
>>
>> >> their platform on nday 11 and i've already voted FOR, does this
>> obligate
>> >> me
>> >> > to vote against it? Do I have a Jiffy to fulfill my obligation, even
>> >> though
>> >> > it's only possible to fulfill it during 1+ nday?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes to the first. And I believe if you don't vote during voting that
>> >> an Oracularity will likely change this fact.
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you saying that an Oracularity would change someone's votes? I
>> really
>> > don't think that would/should happen, since obligations are not ironclad
>> > rules. I can't break a rule, but I can definitely choose not to fulfill
>> an
>> > obligation.
>>
>> If a contract obligates you to act in some way, you do so. If you
>> fail, a Consultation may result in you being made to have done so.
>
>
> I've never interpreted "equitably rectifying the breach" in this way...
> I've always supposed it meant one party would be made to pay the other some
> sort of damages. I figure you should be allowed to break the obligations of
> a contract if you want (just like the obligations to a ministry, e.g.) but
> of course you'd be heavily penalized/the other party compensated. The breach
> and the penalty do not have to be of the same kind, though, I think. A
> contract is just a promise, really, and those can be broken. I just think
> that, otherwise, Contracts become WAY too easy to abuse. If j, 0x44, and I
> decided to make some modifications to Black Corporation while Tyler was
> away, should we be able to enslave him and control his Game Actions? That's
> just my interpretation though, and as far as I remember we haven't had much
> in the way of contract breaches being consulted upon yet. How do others see
> it???
>

Forgot to add: maybe it would be a good idea for Contracts to stipulate the
mutually agreed upon consequences for different types of breach. For a good
model, see Wooble's secret society proposed in Agora today:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-October/014813.html

BP
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss