On Dec 18, 2007 3:40 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True. I suppose this case hinges on whether Agora recognizes the > retroactivity clause. I've previously argued that I think it must; > otherwise Agora cannot fully arbitrate the contract as it pledges to. > > On the other hand, I'm not certain that Agora is able to fully > arbitrate the contract if it does recognize the retroactivity clause. > If an equity case arises, and the judge makes a decision, and then the > contract is retroactively amended so that the contract has proceeded > as envisioned after all, then the judge's determination may no longer > be appropriate.
Perhaps this would be a useful distinction: for matters internal to the contract such as would be raised in an equity case, retroactivity is recognized by Agora; the game can then make a best-effort attempt to resolve any equity cases that would arise. For matters external to the contract, such as personhood, Agora ignores retroactivity concerns and deems the state of the contract at a particular point in the past to have been as it in fact was at that time, which is not necessarily whatever state the contract may deem itself to have been at that point. In the qualifications of the rules of Agora, Fookiemyartug was not a person at the time it attempted to register, so it still is considered not to have been a person at that time, so it is not a player. -root
