>"the strong interest of the game" oh hi it's you again
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3856 > > omd's exploit is the most clever I have seen during my time as a player. > Rule 1742, "Contracts" says, in part, "Rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, > any change that would cause the full provisions or parties of a contract to > become publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect." omd > attempted > to exploit this provision by consenting to an automatic amendment of a > contract > to publicly unavailable text when certain events took place. Eir theory > was that the events would count as a "change" and then be blocked > by Rule 1742. Specifically, omd attempted to block both the exiling of > players > and the claiming of Welcome Packages. > > The word "any" is expansive. "any change that would cause the full > provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable" could > plausibly be multiple changes, one of which caused another. I am not at all > convinced that "cause" implies proximate causation in this case. It may > simply require mechanical causation (i.e. that the change trigger > the effect by operation of law). If the rule had meant "proximately > caused", > I believe it would either have said so or used other phrasing to make that > intent clear. > > However, I find the caller's arguments with respect to the word "change" > convincing. Indeed, while on a first reading I was believed omd's attempt > worked, on a second reading I identified the same problem the caller did. > A "change" clearly refers to an actual change to the gamestate, rather than > a game action. Thus "any change that would cause the full provisions > or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable" refers to the > change > to the contract, not the action that triggered that change. If there were > any ambiguity, the strong interest of the game in stopping players from > blocking arbitrary game actions would resolve it in favor of my > interpretation. > > One final note. Even if everything I'd said in the last paragraph were > incorrect, omd would not have blocked exiles. Rule 1742, "Contracts" is > power > 2.5. Rule 2556, "Penalties", which provides for exile, is power 3.0. Thus, > even with the "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" clause, Rule 1742 > cannot block exiles. On the other hand, it could block Welcome Packages, > which are only provided for by Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", at a power of > 1.0. > > However, I have ruled that omd simply misapplied the relevant provision of > Rule 1742. Thus, eir contract could not block anything. FALSE. > > Judge's Evidence > > Rule 1742/22 (Power=2.5) > Contracts > > Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may > publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention > that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such > an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, > including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all > existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the > consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the > number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a > person to become a party to a contract without eir consent. > > Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in > accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired > by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or > between the contract and the rules. > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause > the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly > unavailable is canceled and does not take effect. > > The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted > with reference only to information that is either publicly or > generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the > provisions are known as the annex. > > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as > explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a > specified recipient. > > > Rule 2499/7 (Power=1) > Welcome Packages > > If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most > recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by > announcement. > > When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins and > one of each type of Card defined in the rules. > > > Rule 2556/1 (Power=3) > Penalties > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win > the game. > > The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is reduced > by 1 for every 3 blots in eir possession. > > A player CAN, with 7 days notice, deregister (exile) a specified > player (the outlaw) who has more than 40 blots. >
