Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 7:30:57 ihope wrote: It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional type), I can do it by announcement. Making yourself a contract would change information for which the Notary is required to be a recordkeepor, so it is in fact regulated.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E changed his text to something that devolved his obligations onto his parties, this being an unregulated action. Presumedly, agreeing to something is the same as agreeing to its text; therefore, these people agreeing to ehird's text were agreeing to him, making him a contract and a partnership. (Also, presumedly, he was not a contract before he changed his text, which is a reasonable presumption.) I change my text to whatever is either ambiguous (my text of what?) or just nonsense. Biological persons do not inherently have a text property that can be changed. On the other hand, ehird having announced that and a biological person's text not being otherwise defined, it is reasonable that if someone says they agree to ehird, where ehird has set eir text, that is equivalent to agreeing to ehird's text. However, I don't see how this means that ehird emself is the contract. It seems to me that that would just make a brand-new contract which happens to have the text of ehird.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I change myself to This contract is a pledge. The parties to this contract SHALL ensure that it fulfills its obligations. Any party to this contract can leave it by announcement. I agree to myself. ISIDTID?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I change myself to This contract is a pledge. The parties to this contract SHALL ensure that it fulfills its obligations. Any party to this contract can leave it by announcement. I agree to myself. ISIDTID? It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional type), I can do it by announcement. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E changed his text to something that devolved his obligations onto his parties, this being an unregulated action. Presumedly, agreeing to something is the same as agreeing to its text; therefore, these people agreeing to ehird's text were agreeing to him, making him a contract and a partnership. (Also, presumedly, he was not a contract before he changed his text, which is a reasonable presumption.) I change my text to whatever is either ambiguous (my text of what?) or just nonsense. Biological persons do not inherently have a text property that can be changed. On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional type), I can do it by announcement. CFJ 1955 did not actually establish that precedent, though. Judge Goethe found that R101 guarantees the ability by announcement to initiate a formal process to resolve matters of controversy, to refuse to become party to a binding agreement, and to deregister rather than continue to play. The judgement did not delve into whether R101 guarantees the ability to perform any arbitrary unregulated actions by announcement, apart from noting that it cannot work for all such actions. Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense. This sounds an awful lot like the deem discussion of early 2007. Deem. That's a good word. Like moot. Moot, meet deem. Deem, meet moot. mootiddy deem deem deemdiddy moot. Deem deems deem moot, moot moots moot.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: CFJs 1615-1616. Nutshell: If you claim you are something you're not (I am an avacado!) the courts can use common-sense evidence to find the claim factually false, even if making the claim is unregulated or strictly-speaking rules-irrelevant. Important corrollary: in addition to claiming to be something this extends to announcing that you actively make yourself into something. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
Goethe wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense. This sounds an awful lot like the deem discussion of early 2007. Deem. That's a good word. Like moot. Moot, meet deem. Deem, meet moot. mootiddy deem deem deemdiddy moot. Deem deems deem moot, moot moots moot. Smock!
