On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote: > And I wholeheartedly disagree. If the message would have really > created a contest then the rules call for no such time limit. Game > custom should not surpass the rules. I doubt either of you would say > "You can't exploit that loophole because the game custom is that no > one has exploited it before".
I concur. It is because of item (d)-- "is published before any contestants
become a party to it"-- not item (c) that I published the messages
separately. If not for item (d) I would have done the entire thing in a
single message, because to "allow any First-class player to become a
party" means, to me, that the contract-- R2136 is unquestionably referring
to contracts, if you take into account the name change-- allows any
first-class player to become a party in some reasonable manner, such as by
announcement. Since most of the other points, (a), (b), (e) refer only
to the text of the agreement it makes no sense that (c) should be
interpreted differently.
Consider the case that I had, in "the second part", merely joined the
contests on behalf of the AFO, then a few seconds later posted a 'third
part' in which I awarded points and dissolved the contests. By the
precedent here, the 'third part' message would retroactively invalidate
the contest's having existed or having been a contest in the first place.
The judgement of CFJ 1777 and these CFJs set reasonable precedents that
concur with the spirit of Agora, but I nevertheless doubt that a time
limit like 72 or 96 hours would have been imposed if a scam had not been
attempted. Game custom is that contests should let people have a good
chance to sign up for them before awarding points, but there is no
legislation to that effect. Here are all the other usages of the
word "allow" in the FLR:
From Rule 101:
agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any
rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or
privileges.
From Rule 1688:
stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except
where specifically allowed by the rules.
From Rule 1688:
thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as
allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the
change's power threshold. This threshold defaults to the
securing rule's power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that
rule.
From Rule 2173:
that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,
except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the
explicit consent of all parties.
And, of course, from Rule 2136:
(c) allows any First-class player to become a party,
The first three usages of the word "allow" refer to the rules, where
intention is irrelevant, and it is clearly the denotation of the rules
that matter. Rule 2173 uses "explicitly", and thus is referring to the
denotation of the contract. Then we shall interpret the first-class
player clause as something completely different, where intent is the more
important thing?
Scams are very often ruled invalid. That's just the nature of the game.
It's the same for situations that would cause excessive gamestate
recalculation... we only acknowledge them when there is no possible
interpretation of some rule that would make the commonly accepted
gamestate the real one. Pragmatism in a platonic gamestate.
Look, here comes the proposal that'll tidy everything up.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
