On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
>> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
>
> But R2145, which states that responsibilities devolve to members, clearly
> has precedence over R2169.
No, it says that a contract whose responsibilities devolve to members
is a partnership. That's a big difference: if they don't devolve,
then Rule 2145 doesn't take precedence over anything to force them to
(why should it?), it just says that the contract in question is not a
partnership.
> If you couldn't "sign away" some portion of your rights, contracts wouldn't
> work at all, and the courts have clearly showed that they do actually
> function.
Wait, why wouldn't contracts work at all?
> By agreeing to a partnership, you agree to its formal mechanisms
> for joining contracts, and therefore (in the R101iv) sense, when it
> joins a contract, your R101 rights aren't violated by saying you agreed
> to the process.
I don't think that R101 rights *have to* apply to equations, because
it's entirely reasonable that, now that I have made an agreement
intending it be governed by the Rules, Rule 2169 can say that it
amends the agreement with the equation, or that the equation is
considered part of the original contract, etc., without conflicting
with Rule 101.
However, Rule 2169 stipulates that equations are brand-new contracts
between the parties, and goes so far as to say that they are subject
to the usual processes concerning binding agreements. Rule 2169 can
be reworded to satisfy Rule 101, but the way it is now, it does not.
But here is why that should NOT be fixed right now!
Let's say the CotC and four other people decide to conduct a scam.
This is a large group of scamsters, but it is entirely reasonable if,
say, Agora is divided into teams.
So, they pick some popular contest that everyone or nearly everyone is
a member of. Person A joins it, everyone else leaves. Person A
initiates an equity case regarding the contest. CotC assigns it to
Person B, who judges the equity case with some equation like
{{
Anyone CAN act on behalf of any party to the contract by announcement.
}}
Of course, it gets appealed. CotC assigns the appeal to the panel of
Person C, Person D, and someone else who isn't involved. Person C
attempts to judge AFFIRM, Person D immediately supports, CotC supports
the majority action, and this pretty awful equation is now binding on
everyone who was in the original contest. People could leave the
original contract, but if the scamsters did it right, they would make
it appear as if the original judge (Person B) was just a maverick, and
everyone would assume that the equation would be appealed normally,
until the scam AFFIRM. Depending on the interpretation of Rule 2169,
people who left the contract *after* the AFFIRM might or might not be
bound by the equation.
Not to mention that if the equation is a reasonably equitable
resolution of the situation at hand with respect to the matters raised
(compare Lindrum World, which did happen to resolve the issue at hand,
although that was not the bulk of the judgement), the scamsters
wouldn't even be breaking any rules, because it would be an
appropriate judgement.
This isn't really a bug. The judicial system was not designed for
cases where bad judgements could have such disastrous effects: it was
designed primarily for inquiry cases, where a scam judgement has
absolutely no effect on the game. Criminal cases have some power, but
the worst you could do is deregister a lot of people, and there's a
good chance you'll get overruled by proposal. With an equity court
that can make an entire population of Agorans zombies, you need to be
a bit more careful.
