On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof. >> If two members disagree on what was agreed to, or if one member claims >> agreement and the other isn't present, the judge should judge on the >> preponderance of evidence of course, but err on the side of no >> agreement having been given. That's all I was trying to say by >> bringing up R101 in the first place. -Goethe > > A reasonable standard to be sure, but why should it be backed by R101 > in particular? This is an application that would protect the judicial > system, not the individual.
Well, maybe because when I wrote R101, it was my *intent* that it function without R1742 and cover agreements in general whatever form they took (contracts, contests, SLCs, the Rules, handshakes, panel decisions, etc.). R101 uses a general term "agreement" to accomplish this, but R1742 muddies it a bit by stepping in and claiming that any sort of an agreement is a contract. I admit that until this particular issue is tested, it's not clear that this applies; meanwhile these are my arguments for doing so. -Goethe
