On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (3) the AFO, in becoming, of its own mechanisms, a party to the Bank >> contract, has made actions and adjustments required of its whole self >> (e.g. its constituent agreement) subject to the equity court. > > Even if this statement had any legal basis whatsoever (it doesn't), it > would violate the R101 (iv) and (v) rights of the AFO's basis.
Dubious. I believe we've previously established that agreeing to a contract is also agreement to abide by any equation that may arise from that contract -- that's what the whole "governed by the rules" bit in R1742 is about. It would appear to follow that: a) You agreed to be bound by the AFO and its mechanisms. b) The AFO through its own mechanisms agreed to be bound by the Bank of Agora. c) By a) and b), you agreed that the AFO would be bound by the Bank of Agora, i.e. that its responsibilities pertaining to the Bank of Agora would devolve upon you. d) The AFO agreed to abide by any equation arising from the Bank of Agora. e) By c) and d), you agreed that the AFO's obligation to abide by the equation would devolve upon you. f) Therefore, you agreed to the responsibility to ensure that the AFO is amended as required by the equation. g) Since all parties of the AFO agreed to it, it happens. Perhaps that's not sufficiently "explicit" for R101, though. >> In much >> the same way as a natural person can be ordered to perform actions, a >> partnership which is a member of another contract may be ordered to >> amend itself as part of an equation for a contract of which it is a >> member, and this amendment would take effect with the taking effect of >> the equity judgement; > > What? You can order the AFO to amend itself, sure, but it doesn't > have to comply, any more than I have to comply with an order to do > something-- in fact, something impossible: the AFO is not authorized > to amend itself. Only its parties are authorized to amend it. See above. >> (4) In allowing the violation of its own clause 5 by a member, without >> taking internal corrective action, the AFO has shown that it does not >> satisfactorily "devolve its legal obligations onto a subset of its >> parties". While this persists, it does not meet the legal definition of >> "partnership" in R2145, and therefore cannot be considered a person. >> The judge notes that the AFO has been an egregious offender in this >> regard, in that it has been used as a "staging ground" or "shell" for >> scams which may have violated equity in the past. > > Nonsense. I am being punished for causing the AFO to violate a > contract, am I not? Then it certainly devolves its obligations. If > you say it doesn't, then why are you asking it to cause me to give > back what I robbed? Surely, with your interpretation, it would not > satisfactorily devolve its legal obligations. The punishment is only effective if the AFO does satisfactory devolve its obligations. It is being granted the opportunity to demonstrate that it does, else the judgement will consider that it does not. >> Therefore, it is within the rights and duties of this Court to cause >> the AFO to CEASE TO EXIST as a PARTNERSHIP or indeed as a contract (e.g. >> become a null contract). > > No, it is within the right of this Court to gratuitously declare the > AFO invalid. An inquiry court might even have the duty to do so. But > neither judgement would actually cause any effect on the gamestate or > the AFO's personhood, by Rule 591, especially when the judgement is > (in this case) not based on any actual interpretation of the Rules, > but on whether the game proceeds as envisioned by the judge, and it is > therefore unlikely to be accepted as precedent. See above. >> If said transfers have not been completed in full one week from this >> equation taking effect, the AFO will immediately CEASE being a >> partnership, as, in showing its lack of devolved responsibilities and >> inability to enforce its own provisions in reasonable time, have CEASED >> being a person as defined by R2145. > > This is patently invalid. Even if the AFO does not exercise its right > to refuse to accept to an agreement, which is clearly a proper action > with respect to this judgement, the AFO is just agreeing to a contract > (equation) that says it's not a person. This does not make the > statement true. c.f. "the contestmaster is root". See above. > Although this is indeed a beautiful judgement, it appears you have > taken the flexibility offered by equity cases and misinterpreted it as > the ability to impose Lindrum World on the parties to a contract > involved in one. However, Lindrum World is quite well safeguarded > against, *especially* in the equity court, for equations are quite > limited. They can only create SHALLs, not CANs, and it's unclear > whether they can even modify the original contract. Certainly they > can't broadly change the interpretation of the rules and state of the > game as this one attempts to. If this judgement is ruled valid, I > will deregister in protest. If they're as limited as you claim, then they're very nearly useless. What's the point of establishing a SHALL in an equation where the original contract most likely already has one? -root
