Ian Kelly wrote: >I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed, How was it exposed, btw? Who leaked?
>totally ludicrous to me to consider an unknown definition from a >private contract as having meaning in public discourse. It always was ludicrous. A secret definition obviously does not have scope extending to BobTHJ's notice of intent. Said notice did not publicly identify any particular action. My appeal of CFJ 1799 was a hedge. I appealed it in case CFJ 1805a ended up ruling that the secret definition was effective, because the judgement of CFJ 1799 was based on the theory that it was not. There was a threat that an inconsistent pair of judgements on those two CFJs would result in an undeserved win. Consistent judgements would not, regardless of what was decided regarding the scope of secret definitions. I urge the panel to judge both of these appeals together. I further consider that, even without these definitional problems, awarding a win is not something that can be done via the "acting on behalf of Agora" mechanism. A win is triggered by certain events to which the rules directly attach such significance. The Agoran rules do not give actions of Agora any significance, and in particular do not give Agora the capacity to cause wins. Actions of Agora have significance to a particular nomic only as determined by the rules of that nomic; CFJ 1714 was concerned with this for foreign nomics, but the logic applies equally well reflexively. -zefram
