Gratuitous counterarguments: ProofTechnique, I tend to disagree, although I see where you're coming from. The problem I have is with the way you construe the sentence "a pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so." I see this as meaning essentially "if/when it becomes possible for a player to take some action or series of actions that would allow em to reach the completion state of a pledge e made, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion". I assent to your premise that negative pledges don't have completion states, but to me this only implies that such pledges never become possible to fulfill, thus never creating a positive obligation. To put it another way, the events that would trigger a positive obligation CANNOT and therefore do not occur, so they never trigger that obligation. The entity is still a pledge, and still creates a negative obligation (by the way, the layout of Rule 2450 strongly favors this interpretation, as it addresses both positive and negative obligations, implying that both can exist).
Further, if the matter is unclear, Rule 217 states that "Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game." There are, to the best of my knowledge no precedents on the matter. Game custom, common sense, and the best interests of the game seem to indicate that negative pledges can be broken; certainly it makes sense and is in the game's interest to hold players to even negative pledges. Although I believe in negative obligations, I have no opinion on whether pledges should persist if broken. There are fairly strong arguments on both sides. Nevertheless, I would suggest the judge consider the impact of CFJ 3538 [1] on the pledge that prompted this case. That CFJ suggests that pledges that unconscionably restrict access to the Fora, even discussion Fora, are unenforceable. The present pledge seems broad enough that it would likely trigger that provision and therefore be unenforceable. [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3538 -Aris On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Jack Henahan <jhena...@me.com> wrote: > > My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined > completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could > be argued to be invalid. > > To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge > >> I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or >> to respond in a-d to anything CB does. > > I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1] by definition because it > cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2] > after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible > to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete. > > By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit, > "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do > so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have > been violated by the actions of the pledger". > > Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either > Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which > alter the position of the switch. > > All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes > a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative. > > [1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450 > [2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023 > > Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken once." >> >> Arguments: >> >> Consider the text of R2450: >> >> "A player <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> SHALL NOT >> <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> break eir own publicly-made >> pledges. >> >> A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in >> a timely <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023> manner after it >> becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be considered broken at the >> moment the pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge." >> >> There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common usage, >> we have several type of breaking: >> >> * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it >> also nullifies the contract. >> >> * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In >> cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss >> continuing it (arguably creating a new promise). >> >> * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it >> remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break it >> more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew. >> >> Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's >> remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a pledge. >> Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot >> be broken again. > > > -- > ProofTechnique
