On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
>> would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
>> {{{
>> This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
>> contract in the next week is a party to this contract. All parties to
>> this contract owe ais523 1 VP.
>> }}}
>> Obviously, this doesn't work, and it's a good thing this doesn't.
>
> So, by your definition, "explicit" agreement to a contract is any sort
> that results from a message? That is to say, the following, if
> enacted into a Rule
>
> Deregistering constitutes consent to join the Agoran Welcoming
> Committee.
>
> would definitely create explicit consent, by your definition, since
> any person should be aware of the rule at the time that they
> deregister; but in turn, the only difference between this and your
> hypothetical Rule is the fact that it requires sending a message.
>
> Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as "explicit"?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290.
-Goethe
