Judgment: Clearly false, per CFJ 3587. The contract has been adjudged ineffective, so this CFJ is IRRELEVANT. ---
-Aris On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:57 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Obviously this is frivolously false, as my contract at the time did nothing. > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Telnaior wrote: >> > I spend an Action Point to initiate a Call for Judgement on the >> > statement "VJ Rada is required to give G. a million dollars", and bar VJ >> > Rada from the case. I also >> > request that this not be judged before CFJ 3587, as it hinges upon many >> > of the same arguments. >> >> This is CFJ 3589. I assign it to Aris. >> >> >> > Caller's Arguments (this is giving me high school debating flashbacks): >> > >> > Following the precedent that will hopefully be set in CFJ 3587, it is >> > clear that parties to the contract 'Judicial Activism: the Contract' are >> > bound to act within >> > the best interests of the game. I believe that lying to fellow >> > law-abiding players, even in the discussion forum, is contrary to these >> > interests and is therefore >> > forbidden. It should be clear that this is true - disrupting the order >> > of Agora and confusing the players does not help the game in any way, and >> > makes it easier >> > for scams to slip by unnoticed. This specific case is particularly >> > egregious as VJ Rada was able to influence the content of an Official >> > Proposal. There is no >> > question, either, that G. is a law-abiding player - E holds three >> > offices, through which it would be very easy for em to damage the gamestate >> > if e wanted. As e has >> > not, this should not be in dispute. >> > >> > Having established that parties to the contract in question are not >> > allowed to lie in this manner, it should be clear that VJ Rada is required >> > to follow through on >> > the agreement - as G. authored the Silly Person's Official Proposal as >> > specified, VJ Rada should give em a million dollars. One potential >> > objection >> > could be that >> > the contract cannot affect actions taken outside of the gamestate. I >> > reject this supposition, as there is no clear requirement for the contract >> > (or indeed the >> > rules themselves) to be restricted thus. It can also be argued that >> > every action taken in Agora has effects in the real world, due to the >> > physical aspect of >> > posting in the Fora. Regardless, there seems to be no good reason for >> > the potential of real money trading to be excluded. As such, VJ Rada is on >> > the hook for the >> > money, as one would say. >> >> >> Gratuitous arguments from ais523: >> > Gratuitous argument: I believe that requiring players to pay >> > significant amounts of real money is not in the interests of the game >> > either, so some balance will need to be found. >> >> >> Gratuitous arguments from G.: I'm willing to negotiate a settlement. >> >> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
