On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 16:20 -0500, comex wrote: > Of course you might complain that I don't annotate the Ruleset with > CFJs. Which is fair-- if someone has the spare time to, let them hold > the office...
R2166: CFJ 1911: This rule does not allow the creation of persons by announcement. R2215: CFJ 1921: A statement made to a PF stating that someone agrees to a contract is agreement to the contract due to this rule, even if not phrased as an action. R2166: CFJ 1922: If more than one type of asset has the same name, attempts to transfer them fail unless they specify which is meant. R1504: CFJ 1924: Tariffs can be dependent on other factors, instead of being merely fixed uncomputable durations. R2198: CFJ 1926: Players cannot generally leave pledges by announcement. R754: CFJ 1930: Definitions in the rules provide default definitions for contracts, unless the contract specifically states a different definition is wanted. R1504: CFJ 1935a: If someone alleges that an illegal action happened over 200 days ago, a resulting criminal case must therefore be found OVERLOOKED, even if the illegal action actually happened more recently. R2158: CFJ 1938: Just because a judgement is an obvious scam does not mean it is necessarily inappropriate. R1742: CFJ 1941: A contract can allow arbitrary persons to act on behalf of its parties. R1742: CFJ 1946: It is impossible to agree to a contract that says you can't agree to it, as such an agreement is self-contradictory. R101: CFJ 1952: A criminal CFJ is not itself a punishment for the purposes of this rule. R2157: CFJ 1953: Causing an appeals panel to do something illegal is not a violation of the rule the appeals panel broke, but of rule 2157. R2166: CFJ 1956: It is possible for two fungible assets of the same type to own different amounts of another type of asset. R2198: CFJ 1958: Specifying a means for the termination of a contract does not imply that that means is POSSIBLE. R683: CFJ 1959: The validity of votes is evaluated instantaneously, rather than at the time the votes are cast. R2143: CFJ 1971: A disclaimer saying that information in a report is not necessarily true prevents the report being a report. R2166: CFJ 1978: The asset holdings in a report self-ratify even if there is a claim of error against a different part of that report. R2191: CFJ 1980: If a contract's internal state is uncertain, and this affects the contract's statement as to whether it is a pledge, this causes it to be uncertain whether the contract is a pledge. R101: CFJ 1981: A punishment must be handed down by the rules to qualify as a punishment under this rule and thus prevent future punishments. R591: CFJ 1983: Inquiry cases generally exist even if the "statement" given is not gramatically a statement. R1868: CFJ 1990: It is POSSIBLE (although illegal) for the CotC to assign a poorly qualified entity to a CFJ. R478: CFJ 1994: A message happens at the time it is sent (by leaving the sender's technical domain of control), even if it does not arrive until later. R2193: CFJ 2002: This rule is the Monster, due to its name. R2215: CFJ 2004: A rhetorical statement does not have a truth value, and so does not mislead people as to its truth. R1504: CFJ 2007: This rule makes it impossible to put players into the chokey by announcement. R2141: CFJ 2013: Rules can allow, disallow and/or mandate physically impossible actions, but this does not mean that a rule can cause such an action to happen. R754: CFJ 2014: Referring to "I" when acting on behalf of someone else is ambiguous. R1742: CFJ 2017: It is impossible to make a player into a contract by agreeing to em. R478: CFJ 2021: "public" in "public message" and "public forum" has a different meaning; a public message which is a forum is not necessarily a public forum. R101: CFJ 2032: This rule prevents contests which bribe their parties to fail to excercise their rights under this rule from working. R1922: CFJ 2035: Judging that someone may be awarded the title of Scamster does not mean that the judge CAN award that title. R2145: CFJ 2042: Judgements in equity cases can affect the parties to partnerships bound by the judgement, even if the parties of the partnerships have changed since or the partnerships have been dissolved. R101: CFJ 2052: There is a strong presumption that excercising rights under this rule is not inequitable behaviour. R2150: CFJ 2055: Persons do not lose to be persons merely by losing access to email. R478: CFJ 2056: One message sent via multiple fora is still just one message. R2145: CFJ 2057: Partnerships are still persons if at least to persons SHALL ensure they meet their obligations, even if they CANNOT. R101: CFJ 2060: This rule does not prevent excess CFJs being refused as the CFJs could be filed again later. R754: CFJ 2062: Synonyms created via rot13 or other simple encryption schemes are synonyms for the purpose of this rule if instructions for decoding them are given in the same message. R2178: CFJ 2064: Changes to public contracts must be specified in the message announcing that they changes happened, or the contract does not change. R1728: CFJ 2065: An intent to perform a dependent action fails if it contains volatile parameters (i.e. the action depends on information which will not be available until the action is resolved). R2169: CFJ 2067: If a contract is clearly labeled as a scam attempt, then it is not inequitable for the contract to mislead non-parties, as long as the contract proceeds as envisioned by its parties. R591: CFJ 2073: It is possible to call an inquiry CFJ by publishing a statement that logically implies that an inquiry CFJ is called, giving the relevant information. R1586: CFJ 2078: This rule implies that it is IMPOSSIBLE for two contracts to have the same name. R478: CFJ 2086: If a message does not specify the order that actions in it are performed, there is a very strong presumption that they are performed sequentially in the order specified by the message. -- ais523
