The Notary's report dated 14 October 2008 does not list UNDEAD as a
current contract. I accept this as prima facie evidence that the
Notary has not been notified of UNDEAD's text or membership, if it
indeed is active.
As best as I can determine, the UNDEAD contract was never terminated,
nor has there been any point since its latest documented inception
that zero registered players were members of the contract. I
therefore have to presume that the contract is indeed still active
and has contracting players, even though it may be dormant. I urge
any appeal board to look hard at this point before they overrule me.
Defendant Goethe has demonstrated that e has carefully considered the
consequenses of not informing the Notary of UNDEAD, whether or not e
is a current party to the contract. Contracts among players kept
hidden from Agora at large have a long history in this game, possibly
even back to the days of the Mousetrap scam. It is not my place here
to rule on whether the existence of a hidden contract should be
reported, just to note that the parties to such a contract should
know what they are doing. (Which also applies to amending
fundamental rules such as R101.)
As Defendant Goethe clearly considered the consequences under SHOULD
as per R2152, I find em INNOCENT.
Trial Judge OscarMeyr
****
Evidence 1, testimony from ais523 in response to my Order:
Rule 2173 says:
{{{
The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary
informed of its text and set of parties.
}}}
First, UNDEAD is definitely not a public contract. (If it were, the
Notary would be tracking it; I'm the notary, and I'm not.)
If UNDEAD is a contract, therefore, it's a private contract. Rule 2173
is very clear that the parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the
Notary informed of its text and set of parties. (I hereby state for the
record that I am the Notary, and have not been so informed.) In
particular, it is necessary to re-inform the Notary every time a new
Notary is elected; rule 2173 forbids the Notary to disclose such
information other than to the judge of a relevant equity case, and so if
the new Notary is not a member of the contract in question (and I state
for the record that I am not), and has never been Notary before (I
wasn't), then they have no way of knowing its text, and thus SHOULD be
reinformed.
Therefore, the only situation in which I don't have to be informed is if
UNDEAD is not a contract at all. A contract is a "binding [agreement]
governed by the rules" (R1742), and UNDEAD was certainly such an
agreement once. Murphy's 2007 thesis
(<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
msg02060.html>) provides indirect evidence of this; part of the
agreement was also published. Therefore, UNDEAD only fails to be a
contract if it was terminated in the meantime. The apparent existence
of CFJ 2223 is further evidence that the contract in question exists.
****
Evidence 2, testimony from Goethe in response to my order:
1. In my defense statement I said that *if* said contract exists
then I did
indeed consider consequences etc., and if it doesn't there's nothing
for me to
consider. I'm pretty sure both possibilities lead to the same
verdict so I
hope this is sufficient under the current Rules.
2. However, while I might weasel out under #1, I'd like to ask that you
consider making a stronger precedent: I believe that *unknown* Private
Contracts have a place in Agora and that for the good of the game,
players
should be given the benefit of the doubt on whether they kept their
contracts
private for a well-thought-out and considered reasons (see for
example my
comments about "fishing expeditions":
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/
2008-October/020521.html
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/
2008-October/020523.html
).
In other words, I hpe the burden of proof would be on the accuser to
show
that the contract exists and if so, that the defendants disobeyed a
SHOULD,
even in the face of a defendant's silence. So I specifically (and
with full
knowledge of potential consequences) choose to remain silent on the
above
facts as a test case.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
