On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Yes, and I believe the judge has the power to create the same agreement that you could create yourself. I don't believe e has the power to make it into a contest absent the explicit power to do so being granted by the rules.
