On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> 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.").
This is spinning off course a bit, I was mainly pointing out that CFJ1290
already addressed the implication you gave in an early email, that some
interpretation on this CFJ could in some way be extended to allow a contract
such that "I deregister" would be taken to be a contract-joining action.
CFJ1290 dispelled that notion.
The current question is:
1. If you join a contract explicitly, you are explicitly agreeing that it
is binding under the rules agora;
2. And the rules of agoran binding explicitly said that this could commit
you to another contract.
So do two explicit steps make an implicit, or does it stay explicit? At this
point I think it was unclear enough that the fix had to be legislative,
and it was made, so I wouldn't appeal either direction at the moment.
-Goethe
