Aaaaaand that's that. Oh well, even if the scam didn't work in the end, at least it stimulated some interesting philosphical discussion :P
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > I judge CFJ 3708 as follows: > > When a person becomes a player, e agrees to the Rules, which includes > agreeing to the power structures in the rules. In that, e is agreeing that > the clauses in R869 overrule clauses in R1742, when there is a conflict. > So this clause in R869 power-3: > The Rules > CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without > that person's willful consent. > > is in conflict with, and has precedence over this clause in R1742: > > A contract may be modified, including > by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing > parties. > > in cases where potential parties to a contract do not consent. This means > that parties cannot be added to a contract without those parties' willful > consent. To be clear, "willful" strongly implies "opt-in" (silence does not > equal consent). I find FALSE. > > [I was working on a longer argument, that, in noting that non-players can > join R1742 Contracts without agreeing to the rules, shows some various > problems with D. Margaux's interpretations (i.e. there were some > contradictions that arose for me when I took that argument to be true). > But that's a bit too much for what is really a plain reading of the rules]. > > On 2/10/2019 10:49 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > I CFJ: “The parties to an existing contract CAN agree to amend it by adding > > additional players as parties, even if those additional players did not > > expressly agree to be party to that contract apart from agreeing to be > > bound by the Rules generally.” > > This is CFJ 3708. I assign this CFJ to G.
