RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
Goethe wrote: Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. Ah, I interpreted it as While a player has not had a reasonable chance to review a change to a contract, e is not bound to it. Your interpretation hadn't occured to me, but it's an interesting one... -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
ais523 wrote: However, two of the parties to the contract don't want to call an equity case, and the third tried to but potentially it was remotely retracted. (This is yet another TITE scam, that rule severely needs fixing; however, it is not the place of a judge to deprive players of a valid Scam merely because it was a scam, just to determine whether it worked or not.) If TITE were more widely supported, I think this would be a relatively strong argument in favour of the act-on-behalf not working; however, TITE is controversial, buggy, and not generally agreed upon, and so I can't take it as influencing game custom all that strongly. It is a rule, though, so this argument is mildly in favour. I think the problem with this judgement is that you dismissed R101(ii) too quickly. TITE explictly claims precedence over the Inquiry courts for resolving matters of controversy involving contracts and claims to be the process for resolving contract disputes. Thus, a blocking of the equity court does indeed have the potential for violating R101(ii) rights, even though an inquiry case could be called - the fact is that inquiry cases aren't the specified formal process for these particular matters of controversy. TITE may be a buggy formal process, but it is the formal process in question. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
ais523 wrote: This question has come up once before, around the Vote Market was modified from majority support for changes to without-3-objections. In http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05818.html, Goethe argues that it is not protective of an individual's interests to allow a majority-consent change (foretelling the scam this CFJ is about, incidentally); I meant this comment in the narrow sense of not being protective of my economic/voting interests, unrelated to rights. In other words, I recognized that the contract had the legal ability to mousetrap me to greater restrain my voting ability, and it was in my interest (and others' interest I hope) to try to drive a change in the change approval mechanisms. (It was my own fault for not paying attention to the majority issue when I joined). If someone is mousetrapped into a contract or an amendment on it, then act-on-behalf does not work, because it was never granted, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Being mousetrapped into a new contract is one thing (not allowed). Wilfully entering a contract with limited escape clauses and the stated ability to change by majority (or whatever level is specified) can get you in trouble, and I think that's quite legal, provided you have the reasonable opportunity to review the changes. This right to review doesn't necessarily guarantee the ability to escape if you don't like the proposed changes - the right to terminate a contract is conspicuously absent. This is why, for example, it's important to assume that all contract change methods must be specified in the contract; even a unanimous meta-agreement to end a contract can't terminate a contract in the absence of a contract clause allowing it. Remember, again, that the Proposal System ca. 2006-2007 was considered to be an example of a system that is protective of rights, and that system hasn't changed substantially, so could be used as a model; that includes majority changes being permitted, even if those majority changes make it possible to mousetrap someone. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:02, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilfully entering a contract with limited escape clauses and the stated ability to change by majority (or whatever level is specified) can get you in trouble, and I think that's quite legal, provided you have the reasonable opportunity to review the changes. This right to review doesn't necessarily guarantee the ability to escape if you don't like the proposed changes - the right to terminate a contract is conspicuously absent. This is why, for example, it's important to assume that all contract change methods must be specified in the contract; even a unanimous meta-agreement to end a contract can't terminate a contract in the absence of a contract clause allowing it. Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
comex wrote: R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity. Hmm... can't I consider myself not bound by a contract even if I have reviewed them? Not that that does anything... -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or any method that gives people a chance to leave the contract before it's resolved. I think pretty much all popular contracts at the moment have such an agreement-safe mechanism. Well, unanimous consent isn't rules-defined; I'd say without objection + a chance to review an amendment is equivalent to unanimous consent; every party has implicitly consented to the change by not objecting to it (or by leaving the contract). It was fully and completely intended that opportunity to review means that there's a voting process/viewing where everyone sees the amendment (e.g. no secret changes), but not necessarily full consent. The difference between rights wording--consent (needed to enter the agreement) and review (needed to change the agreement)--is marked, was present from the beginning, and is direct evidence of the intent and appropriate reading. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to review the later changes. I would say this is perfect grounds for throwing the change out. R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity. Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. Now whether that means the change isn't binding to anyone, whether it means e isn't bound by the contract at all afterwards, or whether e is now the only member of the previous contract and the others who did review it are members of another contract, that's a darn good question... it could use legislative clarification, but I'm guessing the good of the game argument would make the change ineffective for everyone. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. When e has a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment, it is no longer an amendment to an agreement which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. Accordingly, e no longer has the right to not be considered bound by it. This is, obviously, not the only interpretation of the clause, but it's reasonable, as the original purpose of Rule 101 (iv) was (as you know) to protect against a true Mousetrap, where a person is actively bound to a contract the text of which e doesn't know. Under my interpretation this protection would still be effective. (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term mousetrap to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On 12 Nov 2008, at 00:26, comex wrote: (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term mousetrap to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.) Ditto with walrus to any vote-for-this-and-reap-rewards scam. The terms are useful, so whatever. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. When e has a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment, it is no longer an amendment to an agreement which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. Accordingly, e no longer has the right to not be considered bound by it. It depends on how you consider the making of amendment. In most cases (including the one under discussion) amendment-making is an action. If *when the action is taken* the player has not had an opportunity to review, the action fails in some way, because one member is not bound by the action. If the action is repeated after review happens, then fine, the excuse goes away. But after-the-action review does not retroactively mean the original change-action worked, this is against precedent, Agoran custom, and effectively R101. This is, obviously, not the only interpretation of the clause, but it's reasonable, as the original purpose of Rule 101 (iv) was (as you know) to protect against a true Mousetrap, where a person is actively bound to a contract the text of which e doesn't know. Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps. The original intent of (iv) was to protect against secret amendments and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system, when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from
authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps.
The original intent of (iv) was to protect against secret amendments
and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system,
when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement.
{
None of the rights in R101 were added when this version of R101 was written,
they were just pulled together from different parts of the Rules and
called rights. iv was a direct result of Mousetrap (biggest scam EVAR!!)
and has come up many times prior to the rights form (e.g. CFJs 1289-1290).
}
-you, http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg11255.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote from before R101 renumbering I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back to you on that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote from before R101 renumbering
I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back
to you on that.
Ah, here is what I was remembering when I said that:
{
And, while the Mousetrap's argument was deemed flawed in the courts,
it did lead to some decent legislation in the end. [...] And, finally,
we now have a Rule saying that no Player can be bound by a body of law
that has not been first made available to em.
}
from http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/MousetrapThesis
It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at
least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people
precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a
player at the time so you would know better than I.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends on how you consider the making of amendment. In most cases
(including the one under discussion) amendment-making is an action.
If *when the action is taken* the player has not had an opportunity to
review, the action fails in some way, because one member is not bound
by the action. If the action is repeated after review happens, then
fine, the excuse goes away. But after-the-action review does not
retroactively mean the original change-action worked, this is against
precedent, Agoran custom, and effectively R101.
Perhaps, but the right is to not be considered bound by an
amendment. As has been noted, the meaning of this is unclear in the
context of the present contract system. The condition would be
satisfied if such mousetrap amendments were entirely ineffective, but
also if the amendments were effective, but any obligations imposed by
them simply had no effect on anyone who did not previously have a
reasonable opportunity to review them. In this case Rule 101 would
take precedence over Rule 1742's Parties to a contract SHALL act in
accordance...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from
authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps.
The original intent of (iv) was to protect against secret amendments
and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system,
when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement.
{
None of the rights in R101 were added when this version of R101 was written,
they were just pulled together from different parts of the Rules and
called rights. iv was a direct result of Mousetrap (biggest scam EVAR!!)
and has come up many times prior to the rights form (e.g. CFJs 1289-1290).
}
-you,
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg11255.html
Good catch, I misspoke in the message you quoted and was blending (iii) and
(iv) without distinction. From memory, the right to review changes
was one I added in thinking of Rules as agreement and not part of the SLC
right to not join -- a quick glance back doesn't find right to review
anywhere prior to Rights though maybe I'm wrong.
By the way, equity used to be very very simple extension of agreements
back when we had Orders, needing only one paragraph for (inquiry) cases:
If the judge of such a CFJ finds that the
agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement
be binding under the rules, and that the agreement has in fact
been broken, then e may order the breaching party to perform
according to the agreement, or perform substitute acts that
would fairly serve the interests of the agreement; e may further
order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as
may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice.
-Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a player at the time so you would know better than I. At a quick glance at SLC rules I didn't see anything about reviewing: A SLC is permitted to define its own mechanisms for changing its own content, and any change to a SLC adopted in accordance with its own mechanisms is legal. so it looks like I did in fact add it. Perhaps, but the right is to not be considered bound by an amendment. As has been noted, the meaning of this is unclear in the context of the present contract system. Yah, I fully agree that it's very unclear what not considered bound means in practice. Looks like it's time for (iii-iv) to get longer and more details the way (i..ii) have. It's pretty easy to write in non-rights terminology any change made without giving parties the reasonable opportunity to review is ineffective but more convoluted in rights- terminology. -Goethe
