On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, e ruled that "knowingly" giving implicit consent, with obvious intent
> that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be
> considered explicit.
E ruled, if we are to take eir arguments literally, that all consent
must be willful consent ("If the Rules require consent, then it should
be interpreted to mean *willful* consent"), but not necessary explicit
("I'll start off from the point of view that consent is normally
explicit, and force others to prove otherwise.").
In CFJ 1455, Judge Steve wrote::
Some discussion of the relation between this Judgement and that in CFJ
1290 seems warranted. The facts in that case, very briefly, were that
the Regulations of the Agora the Beautiful (AtB) Contest claimed, among
other things, that "any insult to the intelligence or character of a
player" implied consent to join the Contest. Goethe then posted a number
of such insults (e.g. "Blob is a doo-doo head."). Judge solublefish
ruled, with misgivings, that implied consent is possible under the
Rules, and that Goethe had clearly given implied consent to join AtB.
(See Evidence <3>)
...
On the other hand, in my Judgement I have given more weight to the best
interests of the game than solublefish did in CFJ 1290. As a result, I
apply a stronger test: instead of implied consent, I look for 'clear and
explicit' consent. So I am setting a new precedent. Future Judges will
have to decide for themselves what to make of it.
In other words, saying that CFJ 1290 involved explicit consent is just
silly, and in fact, CFJ 1455 seems to overturn the precedent of CFJ
1290 to the effect that Agora the Beautiful itself perhaps shouldn't
have been valid. In any case, in CFJ 1290, it was indeed with
misgivings that Judge solublefish allowed AtB's insult trigger to
work, in a situation where only "consent" was required, and the
primary purpose of the message was to trigger it. In this situation,
the R101 language is much stronger, requiring "explicit, willful
consent". Surely, then, we must be just a little more-- if not much
more, by CFJ 1455-- stringent about what sort of consent is valid.
But when I attempt to join a contract, the primary purpose of my
message is definitely not to agree to join equations. In fact, you
may have the reasonable expectation that you will be able to refuse
any equity judgements that you disagree with. Explicit, willful
consent? We are being far less stringent.
As an unrelated issue, I would also like ais523 to opine on whether I
can *take back* my former consent, or, in fact, refuse explicitly.
The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be
considered a refusal; if you oblige the interpretation that implicit
consent is, in fact, explicit, then my silence does not create an
implicit refusal. But what if I explicitly refuse?
Therefore I do urge all players to support my intent to appeal.
