This decision seems sound to me. Under the reasoning of this decision (if it is adopted), I think my October 9 declaration of apathy was successful, because it hid in a lengthy document a new message that was clearly labeled as a new intent.
So I would suggest that if this verdict is issued and upheld, my victory on Oct 9 was valid too. On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:12 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From my message of 2 Oct 2018: > > > [New public msg dated 2 Oct 2018: > > I intend to declare ap- > > athy without objection specifying d > > margaux] > > Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:10 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please inform me of any mistakes. As this is my first CFJ, I probably > made some. Also I'm not sure I understood this case as well as I really > should have to be given the responsibility of judging it. > > CFJ 3670 JUDGEMENT > ======================================================================== > > Called by: twg > Date: October 12, 2018 > > CALLER'S MESSAGE > ======================================================================== > > [1] October 12, 2018, twg: > > > I CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. transferred at least 1 > > coin from the Lost and Found Department to emself." I note for the > > Arbitor's benefit that D. Margaux is also an interested party. > > JUDGEMENT > ======================================================================= > > This case deals with two contracts. The First Bank of Agora (FBoA) was > created to counteract some asset releveling. G. and D. Margaux were the > two parties who consented in the beginning, and no other parties were > added to the contract afterwards. The second contract[3][4], is unnamed > and terminates the FBoA. Again, G. and D. Margaux were the only two > parties to this contract. > > The assumption is that the second contract is successful in terminating > the first, since all consenting parties to the first also consented to > the second, which provides a mechanism to terminate the first. > > The confusion comes in when we ask what it actually means to terminate > a contract. As stated by twg[7], there is not any method to revoke > consent, but as D. Margaux argued[8], Rule 1742 states that a contract > can "terminate by agreement between all parties". Since there is no > definition for such an action in the ruleset, e argues that we should > look to standard English definitions for clarification. By this > interpretation, the FBoA is now terminated and, in a more technical > Agoran interpretation, does not exist. > > But that's not what the CFJ really is inquiring about, is it? > > We first must take a look at G.'s actions[4]. First, e agrees to > terminate the FBoA. That works, according to the paragraphs above. Then, > e transfers the Lost and Found Department's coins to emself. Then, e > transfers 606 coins to D. Margaux. E only does these three actions if > eir intent to transfer all the L&FD's coins[2] worked. As the intent was > published to a public forum and e had given sufficient notice, the > condition is fulfilled and e did, in fact, perform the three given > actions. > > I judge this CFJ TRUE. > > CONTEXT MESSAGE(S) > ======================================================================= > > [2] October 7, 2018, G.: > > > [snip] > > twg (20 Aug 2018) > > -1 Corona (violating rule 2201, which e cannot be fined for because > > it occurred >14 days ago). Not part of report: I intend without > > objection to transfer all coins in the lost&found department to G. > > +1 Trigon (twg believed that Trigon did not have a zombie at the > > time of the last proposal distribution; Trigon attempted to point > > this out, but e didn't listen properly). > > [snip] > > [3] October 11, 2018, D. Margaux: > > > I have sent to G. certain text that has the below SHA-256 hash, and I > > consent to be bound by that text as a contract if G. accepts the > > contract within the next 24 hours. > > > > 2041D49B9354D9BEB770BA513025B4E3D34E5529A18AFF5681FB51AE10FAF930 > > [4] October 11, 2018, G. (response to [3], annotated): > > > The above-referenced Contract reads: > > G. and D. Margaux agree that the contract entitled the First Bank of > Agora is terminated. > > > > > > If and only if my intent regarding the lost&found department[2], > announced > > in my Herald’s Weekly report of 07-Oct-18 (reproduced below for > reference), > > is EFFECTIVE to enable, absent objection, the action it describes, then: > > > > 1. I agree to the contract above to terminate the Bank contract; > > 2. Without Objection, I transfer all coins in the Lost and Found > > Department to myself; and > > 3. I transfer 606 coins to D. Margaux. > > ARGUMENTS > ======================================================================== > > [5] October 12, 2018, Aris (response to a response to [4]): > > > Terminated contracts don’t exist. Nonexistent entities can’t own assets. > > [6] October 12, 2018, G. (response to a response to [4]): > > > It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic > > to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets. > > [7] October 12, 2018, twg (response to [6]): > > > G. wrote: > > > It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is > basic > > > to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets. > > > > R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract": > > > > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be > > binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement > > is known as a contract. > > > > The FBoA is an agreement that was made between consenting persons > with that intention. Whether those consenting persons _still_ so intend > is not a factor that the definition takes into account. > > > > And they are still "consenting persons", as per R2519... > > > > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting > > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. > > > > ...which does not provide a mechanism to _revoke_ consent. > > > > Aris wrote: > > > Terminated contracts don’t exist. > > > > Again, I see nothing in the rules to support this assumption. > > [8] October 13, 2018, D. Margaux (response to [7], spacing altered): > > > Rule 1472 says “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all > > parties.” That’s what happened here. Per Merriam-Webster, the relevant > > intransitive definition of “terminate” is to “come to an end in time.” > > I’m not sure why a contract that has “come to an end in time” would > > still be thought to exist, or be capable of holding assets, after that > > time. If it holds assets, then in that particular respect it hasn’t > > yet “come to an end.” > > -- > Trigon > -- D. Margaux
