Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/11/27, 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.


Objections can be abused too. What if I create a perfectly good contract and
someone objects to it just because its existence will somehow hurt their
position on the Grid (an alliance, for example) or something similar?

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.)


Agreed. As MoB, I was glad Black Corporation took the initiative to manage
itself. Other corporations/contracts should do the same.

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.


I hate to say this, because it will make me sound like a jerk (that isn't my
intention), but I'm going to say it anyway:
If people are joining contracts with sketchy wording, then that's their
problem. We're all nomic players here, let's make sure we understand things
clearly before jumping in. (This would also prevent a lot of ruleset-related
problems). If someone gets in over their head, let's let them call the US
Congress and ask for a bailout.

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


I agree with all of this, and think you said it very well.

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