On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> quote from before R101 renumbering
>
> I'm sorry, I just realized the stupidity of this quote. I'll get back
> to you on that.
Ah, here is what I was remembering when I said that:
{
And, while the Mousetrap's argument was deemed flawed in the courts,
it did lead to some decent legislation in the end. [...] And, finally,
we now have a Rule saying that no Player can be bound by a body of law
that has not been first made available to em.
}
from http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/MousetrapThesis
It would make sense if a no-secret-contracts clause was created at
least in part based on a scam that apparently inflamed so many people
precisely because it involved secret contracts; however, I was not a
player at the time so you would know better than I.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depends on how you consider the making of amendment. In most cases
> (including the one under discussion) amendment-making is an "action".
> If *when the action is taken* the player has not had an opportunity to
> review, the action fails in some way, because one member is not bound
> by the action. If the action is repeated after review happens, then
> fine, the excuse goes away. But after-the-action review does not
> retroactively mean the original change-action worked, this is against
> precedent, Agoran custom, and effectively R101.
Perhaps, but the right is to "not be considered bound" by an
amendment. As has been noted, the meaning of this is unclear in the
context of the present contract system. The condition would be
satisfied if such mousetrap amendments were entirely ineffective, but
also if the amendments were effective, but any obligations imposed by
them simply had no effect on anyone who did not previously have a
reasonable opportunity to review them. In this case Rule 101 would
take precedence over Rule 1742's "Parties to a contract SHALL act in
accordance..."
