On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ============================== CFJ 2032 ============================== >> >> The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a >> contest, would be effective, because neither Rule 101 (vi.) nor >> Rule 478 would prevent its operation. >> Judgement: FALSE > > With 2 support, I intend to appeal this judgement. Punishing people > for not doing something and rewarding them for doing it are very > different things. I can go around arbitrarily rewarding people for not > posting, as long as I have the stuff with which to reward them, and > this certainly doesn't interfere with their right to post. I can't, on > the other hand, arbitrarily decide to punish somebody for posting, and > if I could, doing so would in fact interfere with their right to post, > as they're losing rather than simply breaking even.
Gratuitous arguments: Assuming reasonable participation, the net effect in this case is very similar to taking five points (per week) away from everyone who does excersize the right. And I think your hypothetical reward, if in a contract or rule, would probably abridge the right to participation in the forum. -woggle
