On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. If we are generous, ignore the minor semantic mistake, and and allow > > that the preamble is a part of the judgement, then the declaration of > > contest-ness is part of the agreement. > > > > If it *is* part of the agreement, the agreement of contest-ness is simply > > between the parties. So the judgement is essentially saying "root agrees > > [is required to agree]* that the following is a contest." That has as > much > > legal effect as me making a pledge right now that "this pledge is a > contract. > > You get 5 points." If I make that pledge, I'm required to "agree to it", > > but no one else is, and again it has no legal effect. > > Something can be part of the agreement without being part of the > *text* of the agreement.
I should have followed this up with an example. An existing contest seems apropos. Would you not agree that the Enigma contract's contesthood is a part of that agreement? Or similarly, that the Pineapple Partnership's partnershiphood is a part of that contract? -root
