I present the following as a gratuitous argument to that CFJ, which is 16 characters in length and with the following SHA-1 hash:
- 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2 On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in > length with the following SHA-1 hash: > 0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1 > > > > I call the following CFJ: > The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge. > > > Arguments > > I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be > used to form private but enforceable contracts. Do the full details of > the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"? Or is it enough to > make a public announcement that a pledge has been made? > > Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to > the Referee or other carding authority. It would be great if the judge > could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext > becomes known to the Referee? What if the plaintext is made public after > the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken? > > I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non- > player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say > what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player. (Obviously > non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing > to say they can't make pledges). > > > Evidence > > > I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in > > length with the following SHA-1 hash: > > 0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1 > > > > >
