Here's another newbie-ish question, since I'm sure someone has tried
something like this before and I don't particularly wish to search
through thousands of CFJs (I've done some basic searching, but maybe
have not found the right words).
Rule 1472 states:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without eir
agreement. For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and
agreement specified by contract.
"Consent" is a term of art in the Rules, but "agreement" is not, but the rule
puts them on equal grounds.
Thus permitting "agreement" to be specified by a contract seems like a
vulnerability.
It seems (to me) as if a person could publish a contract that defines
"agreement" to include something completely unrelated, as in this example:
(Fake) contract:
{
For the purposes of Rule 1742, agreement to this contract is given when an
Officer publishes a weekly or monthly report that is required by the Rules.
[...]
}
Obviously I would continue on to do something evil.
Again, I'm sure there's a CFJ or a part of the Rules I am missing, but I
haven't found it yet.
Thanks,
Jason Cobb
