ais523 wrote: > However, two of the parties to the contract don't want to > call an equity case, and the third tried to but potentially it was > remotely retracted. (This is yet another TITE scam, that rule severely > needs fixing; however, it is not the place of a judge to deprive players > of a valid Scam merely because it was a scam, just to determine whether > it worked or not.) If TITE were more widely supported, I think this > would be a relatively strong argument in favour of the act-on-behalf not > working; however, TITE is controversial, buggy, and not generally agreed > upon, and so I can't take it as influencing game custom all that > strongly. It is a rule, though, so this argument is mildly in favour.
I think the problem with this judgement is that you dismissed R101(ii) too quickly. TITE explictly claims precedence over the Inquiry courts for resolving "matters of controversy" involving contracts and claims to be the process for resolving contract disputes. Thus, a blocking of the equity court does indeed have the potential for violating R101(ii) rights, even though an inquiry case could be called - the fact is that inquiry cases aren't the specified "formal process" for these particular matters of controversy. TITE may be a buggy formal process, but it is the formal process in question. -Goethe
