On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 20/07/2013 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree
> > to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents
> > to join and make this an agreement".
>
> I don't get it. Without R101 iii, the above would do what?
>
> My sense is that this goes back to a time where there was some rule that said
> players could make binding agreements, and they would be enforced by Agoran
> courts somehow. This is not the case anymore, is it?
Yup, that's the final point to make. Prior to the Rights being written,
there was a standing mousetrap protection against being forced to join any
"Subordinate Legal Code" that Agora might govern, which could be any document
(Contests, Parties, subnomics, whatever) that the Rules defined, whether or
not anyone "agreed" to them.
When Rights were implemented, the below Rule was also implemented,
as part of a grand experiment in equity, and also to see if Agora could
be used (in theory) as an arbitration method for "outside" (private)
agreements between consenting players. R101iii functioned as long
as the concept had *some* kind of definition, even if not as complex
as the below. Now, since agreements can't be enforced, by Agora at all,
it's pretty much a stub, though it still might be a backup protection
for things like parties.
ok really have to go now... cheers! -G.
Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)
Agreements between Players
Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention
that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become
parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.
A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has
broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the
Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.
If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered
into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that
the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all
of the following:
(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement
or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the
interests of the agreement;
(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such
acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and
justice;
(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions
be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement
in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for
the type of breach.
If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that
agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A
Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple
independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall
be dismissed.
Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the
enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate
another agreement.
