I also call a much more straightforward CFJ with shinies donated to
charity on the following statement: "Judicial Activism: the Contract
has 'fulfilled its purpose, does not specify any gamestate affecting
statements, or otherwise seems unlikely to be used' (quote from rule
2522)".
This is a very straightforward question, I contend that it has not
fulfilled its purpose of significantly improving the game. It
specifies a gamestate affecting statement (what on earth does it mean
to specify a statement? Aris needs to examine eir addiction to the
word specify) in that it specifies who may join the contract, which
affects the gamestate and the Notary's report. And it is likely to be
used, as I am using it now.
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:59 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I create and pend the following proposal with shinies (donated to charity)
> Title: Hopefully you guys all vote for this
> AI: 3
> Author: V.J. Rada
> Text: {Award V.J. Rada a black Ribbon. Enact a new power 3.1 rule
> entitled "ayyyyyyyyyy dictatorship lmao" with the text "Agora's
> official subtitle is Agora: Banana Republic. V.J. Rada is the
> Dictator, and has the power to award anyone e likes a Victory and any
> patent title. Also, eir voting power is 100. Also, e is hereby
> recognized as an abundantly cool dude. From two weeks after the
> adoption of this rule, any player may cause it to repeal itself by
> announcement."}
>
> I call a CFJ with Shinies (donated to the community chest) and with
> the statement: "The pending of the above proposal is illegal because
> it breaks the obligations imposed by the Contract named Judicial
> Activism: the Contract"
>
> ====Bar====
> I bar PSS.
>
> ====Evidence====
> Judicial Activism: the Contract has the following text.
> Parties:
> V.J Rada
> Private Asset Classes: None
>
> Text:
> Any player may become a party to this contract by announcement.
>
> This contract shall not be interpreted in any way by its plain text, but
> instead is only to be interpreted based on common sense and the game's
> best
> interests
>
> ====Arguments====
> Before the real crazy stuff starts, there is a preliminary matter to
> resolve, stemming from rule 2523, the rule which actually allows
> contracts to make things illegal. The rule states that "[t]he text of
> a contract can specify obligations upon its parties". The word
> "specify" is ambiguous. Specify is most often defined by dictionaries
> as "to state clearly" or something similar. Judicial Activism: the
> Contract certainly states no obligations clearly, so it is possible it
> imposes no obligations. However, it would be a better interpretation
> of "specify", in context, to interpret it simply as saying that a
> contract may impose obligations. To be sure, in the sentence "by
> specifying a set of players", the set of players must be stated
> clearly. But in a context so malleable as "obligations", imposing a
> particular non-vagueness rule stemming from the word "specify" is not
> the correct course. Consider the sentence "Jeff was told to specify
> what would happen if he was away". If Jeff said that either John or
> Amanda would have to do his job, his instructions would still be
> followed, even if they did not state specifically which should do the
> job. Specify here is to give information about, and the Collins
> Dictionary explanation, stating to specify is to "give information
> about what is required" backs this up. Agora will, consistent with
> context and ordinary use, contradict the consensus of dictionaries
> (see, eg, CFJ 3527 defining an amount as an integer), and should do so
> here, allowing Judicial Activism: the Contract, to specify obligations
> despite none appearing specifically in its text. JA;tC, if it can be
> interpreted according to its instructions, gives information about
> what should be illegal under it, and that should be enough to satisfy
> the word "specify".
>
> The second threshold issue also stems from rule 2523, which states
> that " If whether an action is permitted or forbidden by a contract is
> indeterminate...it is presumptively permitted.". While the
> permissibility of any action under JA;tC is not clearly stated in its
> text, common sense and best interests of the game are clearly
> determinable, and are determined by CFJs regularly. Even if conduct
> prohibited by JA;tC were not determinable, such conduct is only
> "PRESUMPTIVELY permissable" (emphasis added). Presumptively
> permissible does not mean permissible in all circumstances (otherwise
> "presumptively" would be surplusage). Presumptions can be rebutted.
> In this circumstance, the intent of the drafter to render some conduct
> illegal, and the fact that e is the only party to the contract, should
> rebut the presumption.
>
> Another threshold question is whether the direction of JA;tC to have
> itself be interpreted only by common sense and the game's best
> interests, and never by its text, should be followed. The answer is it
> should. "Interpreting Contracts", rule 2525 states that " [a] contract
> should generally be interpreted according to its text, including any
> clauses giving directions for its interpretation or construction.".
> The interpretation clause in this contract is extreme, but should
> clearly be followed. Even if it is not a "direction[] for
> interpretation or construction", rule 2525 uses the word "generally"
> as an escape clause from the entire sentence (generally should be
> given an interpretation that renders it non-surplus). If there was
> ever a contract that should be exempted from this requirement in the
> interest of justice, it's this one.
>
> The next question is, do the two factors enumerated in JA;tC's text
> and the three non-textual factors (including one factor with four
> sub-factors it's factorception) enumerated in rule 2525 lead to a
> conclusion that illegalising my above conduct would be a good idea? I
> will now go through the factors one by one.
>
> Common sense is almost impossible to argue about, quantify, or specify
> (ha), but to me it seems common sense that pending a proposal with the
> sole effect of making one player the dictator for a short time is a
> bad idea, will make the game less fun if it passes, and will lead to
> scams that possibly exploit terrible problems with the rules. It also
> seems common sense that such conduct should be deterred in some way.
> As much as it is possible to win an argument about common sense, the
> argument that my conduct is illegal does.
>
> It is also in the best interest of the game to have the proposal above
> be illegal. The only purpose it would serve is making the game less
> fun for two weeks, if passed. This would significantly disrupt the
> game without much consequence. Even if the proposal did not pass, it
> would create work for everybody in trying to kill it, without
> provoking any interesting discussion. It is clear that pending the
> proposal above is against the game's best interests. It is also in the
> game's best interests to reasonably deter behavior which may harm
> Agora, and the way that this contract can deter that behaviour is by
> prohibiting it.
>
> The consideration of "justice" under 2525 would, in many
> circumstances, cut against the illegality of the above proposal or the
> interpretation of my contract in the way I am advocating. This is
> because people should not be punished for infractions they had no fair
> notice of, and the text of JA;tC provides no fair notice of the
> illegality of any conduct. Having said that, I explicitly engaged in
> the conduct I allege is illegal for the purpose of possible
> illegality. It is clear that, in this circumstance, I had fair notice.
>
> The rule 2525 consideration of "intent of the parties" is clear. I am
> the only party to this contract. I intend for this contract to make
> illegal the creation of facetious scam proposals. I at least intended
> it to have "teeth" and strong effect, as evidenced by the title. I
> invited Judicial Activism explicitly.
>
> The other rule 2525 consideration of "the principles governing rule
> interpretation" should not come into play. Those principles have
> either already been analysed or have been specifically disclaimed by
> JA:tC's terms. It would be wrong to consider the rule 217 principles
> in the interpretation of JA;tC (although obviously correct to apply
> them in the preliminary rule interpretation questions).
>
> I respectfully submit that this CFJ should be found TRUE: my conduct is
> illegal.
> ..
--
>From V.J. Rada
