On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If > indirect preventions are counted, then almost any game action could be > forbidden on the grounds that it led to breaching the contract.
Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the other hand, "would cause" seems a bit weak; if it was worded "might cause" there might be a stronger argument for GUILTY, but it was hardly inevitable that agreeing to the pledge would result in an impaired ability to judge CFJs.)
