On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 2:03 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I probably do. That clause was intended to include mainly nonsense
contracts that don't do anything.
-Aris
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:03 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
