On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "The valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements >> that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules." > > So you've made your agreement. The agreement exists. I don't doubt > that. But R2169 doesn't imply or specify a mechanism for making that > agreement into a contest, so no mechanism exists in R2169.
I would argue that either the agreement exists and is a contest, or the judgement was for one reason or another invalid and the agreement does not exist at all. But ais523 did not specify for eir judgement a contract that is not a contest, so there's no basis for claiming that such a contract results from it. >> A contest is a possible agreement that the parties could make. A rule >> change is not. So luckily, this scam doesn't extend to arbitrary rules >> changes. (If it did, then no doubt someone, probably root, would have >> used it to win by now.) > > No, an agreement that has the *capability* to become a contest is > a possible agreement that parties could make. I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest. Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so complicated about that? -root
