[s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm glad we are discussing the nature of Contracts, B Nomic, and Nomics in
general. I especially enjoy the more broad, more philosophical discussions.
I'll be doing a little thinking 'out loud' here, so no need to read it if
you don't want to.

I like Contracts because of the way some people use them, but I dislike them
for the same reason, because of the way some people use them. But people
will not be perfect. Maybe the Contract Rules grant too much power for their
lack of safety. (That they were so often used supports this idea.) If you
are going to let people play in a sandbox and make anything, you shouldn't
make their creations always come to life. I think Contracts allow the
creative free reign in making unpredictable pseudo-rules, which can be both
good and bad.

I present the idea that good Contract Rules will protect against misuse but
also maintain the utility of Contracts.

Ideally every Contract would be perfectly clear to all who joined, and so
they could not be manipulated or manipulate others by bringing to light a
hidden complication. But if anyone can create a Contract no matter who
objects, there are no checks to prevent confusion. That is why it is so
important for the Contracts not to have power over anything important to the
non-parties. For example, we can't let Contracts make anyone an Officer with
responsibilities they didn't agree to, and we can't let Contracts allow
parties to do things they couldn't do otherwise, as arguably was the case
with the automatic obligation fulfillment clause. It's also doubtful that
Contracts should be allowed to place burdens on Ministers; at least it
should be as hard for the Contract creator to give responsibilities as it is
for the Ministers to fulfill them. So, calculator-type contracts shouldn't
be allowed, which allow a Player to obligate a Minister to solve a problem
that may be much more difficult to solve than to present. (I'm thinking of
the Contract with the registers and tallies, and also automatic obligation
fulfillment in general.)

Now abusing power that was given to contracts regardless of objection isn't
the only way they can be misused. There is also the concern that people will
join a Contract thinking without knowing what they are getting into. For
example, J joined Black Corporation without realizing that wasn't how
someone got voting privileges, and that if he did Black's members could bind
him to do anything they pleased. That was because of his own misconceptions,
but these were likely caused by the wording of the Contract. He didn't see
the difference between 'member' and 'party,' as we who were already members
understood there to be. This type of confusion (semantics-based) is
unavoidable, of course. But the negative results of such confusions should
be minimized. (Going on the assumption that we want to prevent scams, but
that is a whole different discussion.) Ideally the players will be forgiving
and simply release people from obligations they didn't intend to take upon
themselves, as Black Corporation did when they allowed all parties to cease
to be parties. But some players will be unscrupulous, and so there must be
protections. I'm thinking this should involve some kind of filters on
Contract creation, joining, or enforcement. Either people's proposed
Contracts should require some kind of player consent, or Players' attempts
to join should require some kind of player consent, (I think I heard that
that didn't go too well in the past,) or obligations that were given to
parties without their consent should not be enforced. I think the last might
be the best, but it might also be the most difficult to employ without
reducing the utility of the Contracts. If obligations grow less enforceable,
people will lose trust in the expectations that come with the obligations.

Utility seems to be the great strength of Contracts. People can use them for
many purposes that nobody had thought of before, and people can join them to
form entities that are greater than the individuals themselves. Our
challenge is to maintain or improve on the utility of these as we reduce the
potential for abuse. If we make it safer to participate in Contracts, people
will find them less cumbersome or annoying, and will invest more trust in
them. Their utility depends in part on their security.

What do you think? Do you agree with my analysis, for the most part? How
should Contracts be made safer?


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