I disagree in several respects. First, I disagree with the sentence "It seems logical that the contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement; however, it has no binding power." I request a rule citation for this highly confusing claim. Rule 1742 explicitly states that _all_ contracts have binding power, in that "Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract." Either this is a contract governed by the rules, in which case that provision applies, or it isn't one, in which case it isn't a contract at all (unless you're claiming that it's some other form of contract, which is IMHO equally absurd). Whether or not it can be enforced is entirely separate question, and one defined by practicality.
Second, I disagree with the paragraph "But, upon further inspection, Rule 2483 only says that Agora, players, and facilities can own coins. It does not seem to necessarily 'restrict its ownership,' but rather expand ownership. This would mean that contracts actually can own coins, as by default they can own all assets. Therefore, the First Bank of Agora contract can own coins, meaning G. and D. Margaux's attempts to transfer coins to it is EFFECTIVE." Three points: 1. What does the word "default" mean in the sentence "By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.", if not that any other definition implicitly overrides this one? (I am compelled to admit that I know of another plausible reading for this one, but not for the others below. Also, I can tell you that this was what I intended when I wrote the rule, not that that has jurisprudential weight.) 2. Why does Rule 2483 restate that players can own coins if it is already specified by default? What would be the point, in a purely expansive rule, of restating a previously known fact? In both these cases, the canon against surplusage strongly implies that the list is exclusive. 3. The canon exclusio unius est exclusio alterius states that in the absence of a word such as "include", an enumeration is generally exclusive. I see no grounds for overturning this presumption here, based on the rule text, and quite a few reasons for following it. In short, there a great many reasons why I disagree with your reading, and I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider (you can do so on your own initiative by announcement if you wish to). If my reasoning is wrong, I would like to know why. Also, please note that I ruled in CFJs 3611-3612 that canons of construction adopted in other jurisdictions can be used to disambiguate rules here, provided that the rule is ambiguous in the first place. In Agora, we tend to prefer literal readings when possible, but I believe that even here exclusio unius est exclusio alterius is almost always followed. -ArisOn Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:21 PM ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is my judgement on CFJs 3665 and 3666. Hopefully my logic makes > sense and works. If not, though, I am open to changing my judgement. It > might be smart for me to put up some sort of proto-judgement first, but > it's too late now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > ======================== CFJ 3665 AND CFJ 3666 ========================= > > 3665 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to ATMunn 20 > October 2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to transfer coins > to the contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE." > > 3666 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to ATMunn 20 > October 2018: "G.’s attempt in the message quoted below to transfer > coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is EFFECTIVE." > > ============================= SHORT RULING ============================= > > I judge CFJ 3665 TRUE because the rule defining coins does not restrict > their ownership, but rather expands it to include facilities, leaving > contracts still able to own coins. > > I judge CFJ 3666 TRUE because of the same reasons. > > ========================== DETAILED JUDGEMENT ========================== > > The first issue that must be addressed in judging these CFJs is whether > or not the contract they mention exists. Obviously, if it does not > exist, there is no way assets can be transferred to it. > > According to the rule defining contracts, Rule 1742, a contract is > simply an agreement between two or more individuals to be bound by the > contract's text. In the original message by G. (see Evidence section), e > states that the contract's text had been shared privately between em and > D. Margaux, and had a specified hash. Both G. and D. Margaux clearly and > publicly consented and agreed to the contract's text. The later provided > text's hash does indeed line up with the hash provided by G. > > The question which needs to be answered is whether or not the contract > exists if its regulations are not publicly known. It seems logical that > the contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement; > however, it has no binding power. No obligations within the contract > have any authority if it is unknown exactly what they are, therefore > they cannot be enforced. Likewise, the contract cannot own assets, have > Mint Authority, etc. However, as soon as the regulations of the contract > are clearly and unambiguously stated, publicly known, and verified to be > the same as the originally agreed text, the contract has full authority > according to its text. > > Now that it is established that the contract does indeed exist, and can > own assets, the main issue of the CFJs must be addressed. The contract > specifies that any of its parties CAN transfer coins to it. However, > Rule 2483 asserts that coins and similar currencies can be owned by > Agora, players, and facilities, but it does not specify contracts. And, > according to Rule 2576, "If an asset's backing document restricts its > ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or > transferred to an entity outside that class." This appears to be a > conflict between the contract and the rules, in which circumstance the > rules would take precedence, as the ability for contracts to overtake > rules would likely cause serious issues for Agora. > > But, upon further inspection, Rule 2483 only says that Agora, players, > and facilities can own coins. It does not seem to necessarily "restrict > its ownership," but rather expand ownership. This would mean that > contracts actually can own coins, as by default they can own all assets. > Therefore, the First Bank of Agora contract can own coins, meaning G. > and D. Margaux's attempts to transfer coins to it is EFFECTIVE. > > I judge CFJ 3665 and CFJ 3666 both TRUE. > > =============================== EVIDENCE =============================== > > D Margaux at Sun Sep 30 23:05:31 UTC 2018 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The text of the contract between me and G. is provided at bottom of this > email. > > I transfer 30 coins to nichdel. > > I transfer all of my coins to the contract below between me and G. > > I cause nichdel to transfer 30 coins to me. > > I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message > to transfer coins to the contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE.” (I note > for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested party. Also twg might be > considered an interested party because this transfer circumvents the > “according to eir means” proposals that e authored.) > > If my attempt to transfer coins to the contract between me and G. was > INEFFECTIVE, then I change my vote and cause nichdel to change eir vote on > 8081B* to FOR. > > ///// Contract between D. Margaux and G. ///// > > 1. This is a contract between D. Margaux and G. (the “parties”). Other > players CANNOT join this contract without consent of both parties. This > contract CAN be terminated by consent of both parties. > > 2. The name of this contract is the “First Bank of Agora.” > > 3. A party to this contract has “on deposit in the contract” an amount of > coins equal to the total number of coins e has deposited in this contract, > minus the total number of coins e has withdrawn from the contract. > > 4. Any party to this contract CAN transfer coins to this contract. Making > such a transfer is called “depositing” those coins in the contract. > > 5. Any party to this contract CAN cause the contract to transfer to em any > amount of coins less than or equal to the number of coins e has on deposit > in the contract. Making such a transfer is called “withdrawing” the coins > from the contract. > > ///// end of contract ///// > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:12 PM Kerim Aydin <kerim at u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash. -G. > > > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the following > SHA256 > > > hash: > > > > > > 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D > > > > > > I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for that text > to > > > be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > D Margaux at Sun Sep 30 23:10:10 UTC 2018 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “G.’s attempt in the message quoted > below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is > EFFECTIVE.” (I note for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested > party. Also twg might be considered an interested party because this > transfer circumvents the “according to eir means” proposals that e > authored.) > > (This should raise exactly the same issues as the CFJ that I just raised in > my most recent message, but just in case.) > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM Kerim Aydin <kerim at u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > I transfer 400 coins to the Contract that I most recently publicly > > agreed to. > > > > [Yes, I am aware of the current text of R2483.] > > > > If I have voted on any of the below-indicated proposals, I > > retract those votes. > > > > If Gaelan has voted on any of the below-indicated proposals, I > > act on behalf of Gaelan to retract those votes. > > > > > > I vote as follows, and act on behalf of Gaelan to vote as follows: > > > > > 8077B* twg 3.0 Patchy McPatchface > > FOR > > > > > 8078B* twg 2.0 From each according to eir means > > AGAINST > > > > > 8079B* twg 2.0 From each according to eir means v2 > > AGAINST > > > > > 8080B* Aris, twg 2.0 From each according to eir means v3 > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > > > > 8081B* Aris, G., twg 3.0 Point Installation Act v2 > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > > > > 8082A* twg 1.0 Gamestate correction for July 2018 > > FOR > > > > > 8083A* G. 3.0 quorum fixes > > FOR > > > > > 8084A* Trigon 1.0 Needs more Competition > > AGAINST > > > > > 8085A* Kenyon, twg 1.0 Plain Old Bribery, Mk. II > > FOR > > > > > 8087A* Aris 1.0 Even Freer Proposals v2 > > AGAINST > > > > > 8088A* Kenyon, twg 1.0 Return of the Zombie Loopholes > > PRESENT > > > > > 8089A* Trigon, [1] 1.0 Revamping movement v3.2 > > PRESENT > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
