On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, it looks like this case is applicable now. My judgement is the > > following contract, which is a contest, and has root as contestmaster: > > I call for judgment on the following statement: > "The judge in an equity case CAN make the equation a contest by > stating it is one." > > Arguments: Rule 2136 provides the only mechanism in the rules for > making a contract into a Contest. Rule 2169 provides that: > > The > valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements > that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules. > > The parties to an arbitrary contract could not make an agreement that > was a contest without jumping through further hoops to make it one.
A pledge-contest is an agreement that I, the sole initial party, could make that would be governed by the rules. The fact that I would have to go through the "without three objections" process in order to do so is irrelevant; the fact remains that I *could* make the agreement all by myself. -root
