Upon my first reading, this didn't surprise me that much. It makes sense
that these systems would look similar because AFAIK Contracts were
actually modeled after the rules. However, then I realized that CFJ 3664
where G. and D. Margaux informally agreed to do something but because it
satisfied all the requirements for a contract it was considered to be one.
So let's see:
1) Is it an "agreement"?
2) Did players consent to it?
3) Did said players have the intention that it would be binding upon
them and governed by the rules?
These are the same tests judge twg wrote for CFJ 3664. And I'm pretty
sure the rules satisfy them.
I CFJ: "The Rules are a Contract"
For this CFJ, this message is evidence.
Thanks, Cuddles, for the idea.
On 2/9/19 10:14 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I might have something wrong, hence why I'm posting it here for
scrutiny, but I suspect Agora itself is a contract (with all that
implies, oh boy).
We have in Rule 869 with Power 3: "A person, by registering, agrees to
abide by the Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide
by any agreement without that person's willful consent."
So, registering is an agreement, an agreement to abide by the rules
(by power 3).
We also have Rule 1742 with power 2.5: "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."
Now, this is a bit of a rough part but, a contract doesn't need to be
called or known to be a contract, to be a contract. Its just a name to
a form of agreement.
We've all agreed to the Agora-contract with intention that it's
binding onto us and be governed by the rules via registering, because
it expressly means that we agree to abide by the rules.
It's a bit weird that the contract and the rules that govern them are
the same thing, but that's the case in Agora itself.
So, Agora is a contract.
[image: 980x.gif]
--
Trigon
