On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2032 > > ============================== CFJ 2032 ============================== > > The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a > contest, would be effective, because neither Rule 101 (vi.) nor > Rule 478 would prevent its operation. > > ======================================================================== [snip] > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > The contest egregiously attempts to bribe its parties to not > participate in the fora, by awarding points only if they don't. > However, it's just a bribe. The contest is not actually prohibiting > participation, i.e. you could not initiate an equity or criminal case > against a party who initiated CFJs. > > You see, I'm thinking (with ais523) about starting a sort of contest > based on secret rules... I think it might be quite fun. But if one > such secret rule was that, say, every CFJ submitted had to be in a > message with subject "CFJ", or else you lose points, then we might run > headfirst into Rule 101, because a lot of the contest's parties > wouldn't know about the rule. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > At the end of each week, the contestmaster of this contest SHALL award > 5 points to each party to this contest that did not initiate any CFJs > that week. > > ======================================================================== >
Comments please? Proto-judgment: The proposed contest would not prohibit participants from filing CFJs, so rule 478 does not stop its operation. R101(vi) is more troubling, though it is phrased similarly, because R101 rights are more expansive. For the hypothetical contract, however, I find that R101(iii)'s right to initiate formal processes to resolve matters of controversy is more seriously infringed if any R101 right is infringed by this contract. The initiation of CFJs is the primary mechanism the rules have for settling such matters of controversy, and when the other rules have such a mechanism available to all players, there is no reason to read another mechanism into R101. Now the alleged contract does not prevent anyone from initiating CFJs. But R101 rights can be infringed even when excersizing the right is POSSIBLE. Such a right is indeed "abridged" when an action is PROHIBITED. So to analyze the contract at issue, we must determine if it's treatment of initiating CFJs shares important characteristics with that of a hypothetical rule or contract prohibiting it. There are two essential aspects of rules prohibiting actions: (a) The metagame aspect: Obeying the rules (and through R1742 contracts) is a sacred duty of playing the game. (b) The punishment aspect: The actions carry a disincentive intended to discourage the action (with exceptions for cases where the infringing action was not reasonably avoidable) Clearly, the alleged contract does meet aspect (a). But it appears to meet aspect (b). With the hypothetical contract in force, players initiating a CFJ in a week are effectively penalized 5 points. Now, 5 points are not a punishment currently among the options in the rules, but it is similar in spirit to a sentence of FINE. Now, there is a serious difference here in that, unlike all rule-prohibited actions, the action does not carry a potential punishment of EXILE or CHOKEY, both of which infringe on perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the game -- participation in the rule-changing process. But I think that the hypothetical contest would still effectively punish the initiation of CFJs. Of course, the CFJ initiating right is gaurenteed in unlimited scope. Excess CFJs are not subject to resolution (because they can be rejected) and used to be punished by VC loss. But, the initiation of excess CFJs is not essential to the right to resolve matters of controversy in any normal case; 5 CFJs a week should do the specify the controversy. The initiation of at least one CFJ in a week is. So, is that enough that infringe on R101(iii)? The preamble of R101 suggests the rights should be gaurenteed broadly against "abridgements", "reductions", "limitations", and "restrictions". The effective punishment of initiating CFJs certainly counts as one of these. Therefore, I find that the hypothetical contest would not be effective, rendering the statement false. I proto-judge FALSE. -woggle
