On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Comments please? >> >> Proto-judgment: > > It's a good proto-judgement. > > Too bad it doesn't yield my desired outcome... :( > > Have you considered Goethe's argument wrt refusing to be a member to a > contract?
Not previously, but looking at it, I don't find it convincing. R101(iv) is phrased in terms of a choice, talking explicitly about "consent" versus "refusal", suggesting the important aspect of the right is the ability to choose between becoming party and not becoming party to an agreement. Most importantly, its phrasing strongly suggesting that the right should be interpreted so as to prevent people who 'explicitly' and 'willfully' consent from becoming a party. I believe this enshrines a game custom of allowing people to agree to all sorts of ridiculous and unconscionable contracts that might be otherwise barred by a reasonable reading of R101. And there's a serious difference in scope here. A "bribing" contract would only interfere with becoming party to itself, whereas the hypothetical contract, if made it into a contest, would interfere with all players initiation of CFJs. In consideration of the small effective punishment the hypothetical contract provides (it certainly isn't anything like EXILE or CHOKEY), it is that it would render it fundamentally impossible to excersize the right in any case without incurring punishment that renders it objectionable. -woggle -woggle
