On Fri, 23 May 2008, ihope wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> R101 item i. reads: i. The map being obviously the most >> important rule, every person has the right to move it back up to >> the top of the ruleset if the Rulekeepor put it down near the >> bottom again. > > Well, i. originally read, "Every person has the privilege of doing > what e wilt." Assuming that no one has ever explicitly-and-bindingly > agreed to any current subset of the rules that would prevent a person > from doing something (which I think is true, as I've been around for a > while, at least, and I don't remember anybody agreeing to any subset > of the rules--and the social contract rule doesn't count) and that > changing R101 item i. is "doing what e wilt" (I see no reason to think > otherwise, as this is a "regulated action", implying that it is in > fact an action), the correct judgement is TRUE. > > I plan on actually judging this on Monday. In the meantime, maybe > there's something I've missed.
Here's something: comex posted a nice history of when the Rules were officially treated as a binding agreement, and registering was actually considered to be akin to agreeing to a binding agreement: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-May/015165.html In spite of that clause being taken out, that agreement-that-is-the-Rules wasn't actually terminated for persons who were members at the time, so comex is still bound to treat the Rules as a binding agreement. Basically, if a contract has a clause that says "this is a binding agreement by Agora", and the clause is removed but the contract still exists, is it still an Agoran agreement? I think yes, I think some recent case law about how you can and can't get out of agreements says yes, too. (If it's replaced with a clause that says "this isn't an Agoran agreement" that's another matter, but that didn't happen here). =Goethe
