On Sunday 05 August 2007, Zefram wrote: > Generally, please expand your argument considerably. At the moment > it reads rather like Quazie's arguments in CFJ 1651 which led to it > being appealed. > > -zefram
The amount of text deleted from the judgement is far greater than the amount that was still present. Your statement causes me to reconsider the judgement; because of the uselessness of the term "binding", as whether or not it is binding has absolutely no effect on the game (the parties can be punished even if it is not binding), a judgement of IRRELEVANT is probably most appropriate. This would be completely different if civil cases were in effect. More gratuitous arguments: [CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.] Yes, this says "players", but (although I have no copy of the relevant cfj) non-player parties to R1742 agreements are "players" in a sense. They don't have to actually communicate with the forum, but they do have to agree to the rules (since they have to intend them to be binding upon them). And, in ordinary language, they are "playing" the game. Using the ordinary language definition of "binding", this would imply TRUE. R1503 may well actually imply a judgement of FALSE, but only because it *uses* the term "binding". However R1742 may go against its "in general" default and allow TRUE. IF the rest of the arguments say TRUE, R101 (v) does use the word 'bound' and may cause the hypothetical agreement to sometimes be non-binding if the non-player just agreed to the agreement intending that it be governed "under Agoran law", and maybe doesn't have an Internet connection, leading to a judgement of UNDECIDABLE. Or is this not "reasonable"? R1742 says that they must intend that it be "governed" by the rules, i.e. the contract implicitly includes the rules, and if the party intends that the contract (which includes the rules) be binding, R1742 says that it, in fact, is. If Rule 217 applies, especially because many of these arguments (including this one) are slippery and a matter of the judge's opinion, I would find the "best interests of the game" to include a judgement of TRUE. About half of the initiator's arguments: > Applying R1503 and CFJ 1686 together appears to yield the conclusion > that non-players are not bound by R1742 to abide by their contracts, > and so that a non-player cannot be punished for breach of contract. > > Taking this reasoning further, one could argue that this unenforcability > means that non-players cannot effectively become parties to contracts. > Even if they qualify as parties to the contract, the impossibility of > the contract imposing obligations suggests that they can't be members > of a partnership, as defined by rule 2145. are irrelevant, because criminal cases do NOT require that the defendant actually agree to the rules in any way. Again, would be different with civil cases, but even in that case the second paragraph quoted is patent nonsense.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
