On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Sean Hunt<ride...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a Public Legalistic contract and a pledge, called Three Coins.
>> Parties to Three Coins are called Marvy. For the purposes of Three
>> Coins, to Dance means to cast exactly one valid vote on an Agoran
>> decision, and a Powerful Dance is a vote of PRESENT. Any party to
>> this contract may leave it by announcement.
>> }
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement "It is ILLEGAL for me to vote for Quazie in the
>> ongoing Janitor election."
>
> FALSE, R754 provides that contracts cannot alter the definitions of
> words present in rules.
>
>
Right, but these aren't defined, nor are they used in mathematical or
legal contexts. 754(4) says that the ordinary-language meanings
should be used (and even here, I'm not sure Marvy has an
ordinary-language meaning other than a slang form of "Marvelous"), and
contracts or lower-powered rules should be used for guidance. So my
contract is guiding the undefined term. In fact, if I amended it to
include all players in the definition of "Marvy," I think they might
be bound by the interpretation it causes rule 2029 to have, even if
they aren't parties to the contract.
