comex wrote: > 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.
Interesting angle. It's fair to say that the rules don't address the issue of who they are binding on, apart from (at the time of this CFJ) R1503, which is far from complete in that respect. >[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I have no copy of the relevant cfj) It was concerned with the original rule 101, and what would happen if it were repealed (as it has now effectively been). None of the judges explicitly considered the possibility of the rules being relevant to a non-player. The most relevant portion of the judgement was from Speaker Michael: |If R101 were repealed, then it would not be an interpretation of the |by-then repealed rule that told us that we should all follow the |rules, but rather the implicit meta-rule which we all agree to respect |when we agree to play any game at all. Technically eir invocation of this implicit meta-rule is only obiter dicta, not a binding precedent. However, if you find the principle persuasive, I suggest that the implicit meta-rule (to abide by the rules) is binding on everyone who plays the game in the wider sense, even if they do not have the status that the rules call "player". As you point out, non-player parties to R1742 contracts are players in this wider sense. > may cause the hypothetical agreement to sometimes be non-binding Perhaps. You're in novel jurisprudential territory here. We don't have much history of interpreting the bill-of-rights version of R101. >are irrelevant, because criminal cases do NOT require that the defendant >actually agree to the rules in any way. I don't think the rules of criminal procedure are particularly relevant here. This case is about whether the person theoretically has a certain obligation, which to me is quite distinct from whether e can legally be punished for failing to satisfy it. -zefram
