On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And yet I have yet to see a persuasive argument based on the Rules to >> back up that opinion. > > It doesn't matter whether you see one at this point.
Heh. Well, look at your arguments for appeal. The first half is irrelevant because it deals with the wrong right. But this is the interesting part: > R101(iv) refers to becoming party to the initial agreement, > not the equity result; agreeing to become party to > the initial agreement as "binding" under these Rules > means explicitly agreeing to a process in the Rules for > enforcing the binding, and that is currently the equity > process. Otherwise the term "binding" has no meaning. With respect to everything after the semicolon, as CFJ 2101 was initiated BEFORE "Take it to Equity!", (at the time of the CFJ) there is a process in the Rules for enforcing the binding: criminal cases. So we are left with: "R101(iv) refers to becoming party to the initial agreement, not the equity result". Now, it seems pretty clear to me that equations are new binding agreements-- do you disagree? So, why should an equation be exempted from the right? R101 (iv) does not limit itself to any specific type of binding agreement. The answer, of course, is that equations were not envisioned as being restricted by R101 (iv), and ruling that right ineffective would prevent the equity court from being largely useless, and (thanks to your recent proposal) the entire contracts system from being broken. It also makes sense: why should Rule 101 protect me against an agreement imposed by the Rules themselves? Now, personally, I prefer a broken equity court. But I also agree that R101 (iv) "shouldn't" be affecting the case, and if it turns out to be breaking the equity court, we should either explicitly legislate the brokenness or work around it. But -- as far as I can see -- there is nothing in the Rules that would indicate that the right is ineffective. The ambiguity is very small. So it's a clash of two Agoran traditions: the tradition of interpreting the Rules literally and applauding loopholes and unintended side effects of Rules, and the tradition of interpreting the Rules in the best interests of Agora to let the game continue-- see the Black Repeals, or really the Agoran reaction to many scams... But this is not a scam. Although "Take it to Equity!" may have created some urgency in the matter, I think we have the time to afford ruling the case based solely on the merits, and-- if it is what the majority of Agorans want-- to fix the loophole, or R101. Proto-proposal: Repeal Rule 101.
