On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
============================== CFJ 1627 ==============================
The text in exhibit A, if enacted into a Rule, would conflict
with Rule 101.
========================================================================
The Caller has argued that the text in exhibit A, if enacted into a
rule, would conflict with rule 101 (iii) and rule 101 (v). The Court
takes it to be clear that the text would not reasonably be considered
to conflict with any other clauses of rule 101; Goethe mentions rule
101 (iv), but it seems clear that e intends to refer to rule 101
(iii). It remains to consider these two clauses.
I find that the text would not conflict with rule 101 (iii). This
clause protects the right to invoke judgement. Invocation sets a
process into motion, but does not guarantee that the process will
complete successfully. Goethe's image of a king who uses his guards
to prevent hearing any evidence of a dispute may be distasteful to us,
but there is nothing in the current rule 101 to prevent something like
that from occurring. It is unfair to the English language to
reinterpret ``invoke'' as having a broader meaning than it actually
has in order to derive a conclusion one desires. The proposed rule
does not restrict in any way players' ability to call for judgement;
it only permits their invocations to go unheeded.
I also find that the text would not conflict with rule 101 (v). As
stated in a proto-judgement, the text does not bind players to new
agreements; rather, it allows a junta legally but unjustly to filter
which proposals may be put up for vote. Since this restricts the
creation of new binding agreements rather than directly imposing new
ones, it is not in conflict with rule 101.
I therefore enter a judgement of FALSE.
I have been implicitly asked to propose and defend more of a theory of
rights than is actually necessary to decide the truth of the
statement. I do not consider it good practice to do so. It is better
for us to keep our Agoran theory of rights as loose as we can for as
long as we can than to pin it down to a theory drafted in seven days
to deal with one issue.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Maud, whatever they're putting in your coffee, I want some of.
-- Steve, in agora-discussion
