On Jan 14, 2008 10:51 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hereby recuse comex from CFJ 1855. I hereby assign woggle as judge > of CFJ 1855. > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1855 > > ============================== CFJ 1855 ============================== > > Type: inquiry case > > Statement: The AFO is not part of the basis of Agora's Child, but is a > partner of Agora's Child. [snip] > ======================================================================== > > Initiator's Arguments: > > The AFO ceased to be a member of Agora's Child. > The AFO is still named as an Ambassador of Agora's Child, and thereby is a > partner by the rules of Agora (due to the duties of an Ambassador in Agora's > Child).
I'm tempted to just rule IRRELEVANT because, as far as I can tell, 'partner' is not a term used or defined by the rules. Otherwise a longer proto-judgement: The AFO is trivially not part of the basis of Agora's Child because there is no way for any person's basis to contain a non-first-class person. Though the exact definition of partner is unclear, being a partner in a partnership would clearly require one or more of: (a) being a party to the contract; and (b) having the partnership's legal obligations devolved onto oneself. If the AFO in fact ceased to be a party to Agora's Child, then it could not have Agora's Child's legal obligations devovled onto itself: Though Agora's Child recognizing, as a legal fiction within itself, the AFO has an ambassador onto which its obligations are devolved, absent a requirement in the Agoran rules for the AFO to follow this agreement to which it is not a party, the obligations are not devolved onto the AFO for the purposes of the rules of Agora. The AFO purported to cease to be a player through the internal mechanisms of Agora's Child. The clause in Agora's Child that permits this is: > '113.' A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue > to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the > judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. It would seem against the spirit of this clause (which takes precedence over the clause which devolved Agora's Child's obligations onto the AFO) for the AFO to continue to be bound in any way by the Agora's Child agreement after forfeiting. Furthermore, the text of Agora's Child does not explicitly define who the parties to the agreement are; however, its rule 101 (All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.), its mechanisms for adding and removing players, and that the AFO was apparently considered a player by the internal mechanisms of the Agora's Child agreement when it was formed between pikhq and the AFO strongly suggest that Agora's Child's players are equivalent to its parties. Thus, I conclude that by ceasing to be a player the AFO ceased to be a party to the Agora's Child despite text in Agora's Child that might appear to continue to bind it. Thus, I proto-judge FALSE. -woggle
