Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: require a detailed knowledge of how it works.) As non-Agorans are not even necessarily subscribed to a public forum, it seems quite possible that a non-Agoran could join an Agoran contract yet be unaware of the equity system, and therefore would not be agreeing to be bound by equations created as a result of it. Anyone who agrees to be bound by an agreement that's explicitly binding under the rules of Agora who doesn't read the rules of Agora deserves exactly what they get. To me this sounds like a reason to ban non-players from being parties to contracts rather than letting them be parties but exempting contracts with non-player parties from actually being binding at all. CFJ 1856 requires that to satisfy R101, non-players must demonstrate (to Agora) evidence that they have some basic understanding of the rules or at least presence in the fora in order for contracts to be binding to them (they can't give informed consent otherwise). The judgement didn't say what *would* be enough demonstration, but that a player telling us that a non-Agoran friend of eirs had agreed to a contract is *not* enough. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, e ruled that knowingly giving implicit consent, with obvious intent that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be considered explicit. E ruled, if we are to take eir arguments literally, that all consent must be willful consent (If the Rules require consent, then it should be interpreted to mean *willful* consent), but not necessary explicit (I'll start off from the point of view that consent is normally explicit, and force others to prove otherwise.). This is spinning off course a bit, I was mainly pointing out that CFJ1290 already addressed the implication you gave in an early email, that some interpretation on this CFJ could in some way be extended to allow a contract such that I deregister would be taken to be a contract-joining action. CFJ1290 dispelled that notion. The current question is: 1. If you join a contract explicitly, you are explicitly agreeing that it is binding under the rules agora; 2. And the rules of agoran binding explicitly said that this could commit you to another contract. So do two explicit steps make an implicit, or does it stay explicit? At this point I think it was unclear enough that the fix had to be legislative, and it was made, so I wouldn't appeal either direction at the moment. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
contract in the next week is a party to this contract. All parties to
this contract owe ais523 1 VP.
}}}
Obviously, this doesn't work, and it's a good thing this doesn't.
So, by your definition, explicit agreement to a contract is any sort
that results from a message? That is to say, the following, if
enacted into a Rule
Deregistering constitutes consent to join the Agoran Welcoming
Committee.
would definitely create explicit consent, by your definition, since
any person should be aware of the rule at the time that they
deregister; but in turn, the only difference between this and your
hypothetical Rule is the fact that it requires sending a message.
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as explicit?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
contract in the next week is a party to this contract. All parties to
this contract owe ais523 1 VP.
}}}
Obviously, this doesn't work, and it's a good thing this doesn't.
So, by your definition, explicit agreement to a contract is any sort
that results from a message? That is to say, the following, if
enacted into a Rule
Deregistering constitutes consent to join the Agoran Welcoming
Committee.
would definitely create explicit consent, by your definition, since
any person should be aware of the rule at the time that they
deregister; but in turn, the only difference between this and your
hypothetical Rule is the fact that it requires sending a message.
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290.
-Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote: Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as explicit? Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290. -Goethe Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the consent was taken as being self-evidently implicit and not explicit, and the controversy was whether the rules at the time required consent to be explicit. H. Judge solublefish ruled that they did not. Now, however, we do require explicit, willful consent, so by the nature of the arguments in CFJ 1290, it would be more natural to say that equations are (strictly, were, but let's not get our tenses too confusing) not automatically binding.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290. -Goethe Except that in this case, Judge solublefish repeatedly calls a message Goethe sent for the sole purpose of (possibly) joining the Agora the Beautiful contest-- the published statement Goethe is a yohgurt-brain had no other effect, which is more than can be said for contracts-- implicit, and calls the situation where the message wouldn't have an effect explicit consent. In the end e judged TRUE, but from eir arguments e clearly wouldn't have if Rule 1617 had required explicit consent, as Rule 101 does.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote: Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as explicit? Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290. -Goethe Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the consent was taken as being self-evidently implicit and not explicit, and the controversy was whether the rules at the time required consent to be explicit. H. Judge solublefish ruled that they did not. No, e ruled that knowingly giving implicit consent, with obvious intent that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be considered explicit. It would be as if I said for the sake of art or the style of a contest, anyone can join this contest by announcing in all-caps GOETHE HAS BLUE HAIR, when there's no natural reason that anyone would announce that otherwise. E said, if announced *knowingly*, that that's close enough to explicit to *be* explicit. On the other hand, solublefish (quoting Crito) agreed that regular game actions taken for the purpose of those actions could *not* be considered consent if, for example, you made a contract that said the act of voting will be considered consent to join this contest. solublefish was careful that knowledge was involved: consent was given in that case because in context I specifically, in reference to a contest, posted messages that, while withholding explicit consent, referred to the contest and was far more like the BLUE HAIR example than the voting example, basically, with full knowledge, daring the contestmaster to consider me a member of the contest. If someone else had posted similar messages without reference to the contest and in other contexts, it probably wouldn't have resulted in consent. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
contract in the next week is a party to this contract. All parties to
this contract owe ais523 1 VP.
}}}
Obviously, this doesn't work, and it's a good thing this doesn't.
So, by your definition, explicit agreement to a contract is any sort
that results from a message? That is to say, the following, if
enacted into a Rule
Deregistering constitutes consent to join the Agoran Welcoming
Committee.
would definitely create explicit consent, by your definition, since
any person should be aware of the rule at the time that they
deregister; but in turn, the only difference between this and your
hypothetical Rule is the fact that it requires sending a message.
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290.
-Goethe
Don't forget CFJ 1455.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2101 assigned to ais523
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, e ruled that knowingly giving implicit consent, with obvious intent that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be considered explicit. E ruled, if we are to take eir arguments literally, that all consent must be willful consent (If the Rules require consent, then it should be interpreted to mean *willful* consent), but not necessary explicit (I'll start off from the point of view that consent is normally explicit, and force others to prove otherwise.). In CFJ 1455, Judge Steve wrote:: Some discussion of the relation between this Judgement and that in CFJ 1290 seems warranted. The facts in that case, very briefly, were that the Regulations of the Agora the Beautiful (AtB) Contest claimed, among other things, that any insult to the intelligence or character of a player implied consent to join the Contest. Goethe then posted a number of such insults (e.g. Blob is a doo-doo head.). Judge solublefish ruled, with misgivings, that implied consent is possible under the Rules, and that Goethe had clearly given implied consent to join AtB. (See Evidence 3) ... On the other hand, in my Judgement I have given more weight to the best interests of the game than solublefish did in CFJ 1290. As a result, I apply a stronger test: instead of implied consent, I look for 'clear and explicit' consent. So I am setting a new precedent. Future Judges will have to decide for themselves what to make of it. In other words, saying that CFJ 1290 involved explicit consent is just silly, and in fact, CFJ 1455 seems to overturn the precedent of CFJ 1290 to the effect that Agora the Beautiful itself perhaps shouldn't have been valid. In any case, in CFJ 1290, it was indeed with misgivings that Judge solublefish allowed AtB's insult trigger to work, in a situation where only consent was required, and the primary purpose of the message was to trigger it. In this situation, the R101 language is much stronger, requiring explicit, willful consent. Surely, then, we must be just a little more-- if not much more, by CFJ 1455-- stringent about what sort of consent is valid. But when I attempt to join a contract, the primary purpose of my message is definitely not to agree to join equations. In fact, you may have the reasonable expectation that you will be able to refuse any equity judgements that you disagree with. Explicit, willful consent? We are being far less stringent. As an unrelated issue, I would also like ais523 to opine on whether I can *take back* my former consent, or, in fact, refuse explicitly. The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal; if you oblige the interpretation that implicit consent is, in fact, explicit, then my silence does not create an implicit refusal. But what if I explicitly refuse? Therefore I do urge all players to support my intent to appeal.
