Geoffrey Spear wrote: >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:of >> > >> > 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.
If the only Player in Agora were root, then e could definitely create a
contest by emself as the 3 objections would be impossible. Likewise, if
the only players were root and me. Therefore, "the parties" (that is, the
set of players {root}), could make such a contest by emselves. The fact
that other players could interfere with this doesn't seem to be mentioned
in rule 2169 anywhere, so presumably it doesn't have an effect.
--
ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
