He pledged to conduct a lottery according to the rules which contain a
provision for being changed. That's absolutely acceptable.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:40 PM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules"
> of the lottery the following:
> >
> > - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for
> their ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being
> 00000).
>
> I considered CFJing this, but I think it’s better off being a writing
> prompt: do the rules presently allow someone to modify a pledge after the
> fact? If so, are there any constraints on that modification?
>
> What CuddleBeam is attempting here is clearly being done in good faith,
> and addresses some defects in eir original plan for eir lotto program.
> However, pledging is, at least to some degree, regulated (r. 2450); it’s
> not clear to me that the rules allow someone to modify a pledge after it
> has been made.
>
> The term “pledge” is, in fact, totally undefined in the rules, so common
> definitions apply. A pledge is generally a binding promise to do (or to
> avoid doing) a thing; modifying it after the fact could well be equivalent
> to breaking the pledge outright.
>
> I have no intention of punishing CuddleBeam if I can avoid it, and if I’m
> forced, I’m going to pick the least punitive card I can get away with, but
> I think some care might be merited. To avoid the issue as far as is
> possible, I plan to treat CuddleBeam’s two consecutive messages as a single
> action containing a single pledge, unless the support requirement is not
> met, in which case I intend to treat the second message as a nullity.
> Obviously, this is a one-time thing; given the recent reliance on pledges,
> it might be worth codifying them a bit more thoroughly.
>
> Note that a pledge is not a contract. A pledge is a unilateral promise,
> which is binding even in the absence of consideration in return.
>
> -o
>
>

Reply via email to