> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Jack Henahan <jhena...@me.com> wrote: > > > My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined > completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could > be argued to be invalid. > > To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge > >> I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or >> to respond in a-d to anything CB does. > > I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1] by definition because it > cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2] > after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible > to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete. > > By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit, > "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do > so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have > been violated by the actions of the pledger". > > Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either > Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which > alter the position of the switch. > > All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes > a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.
This is, in large part, my motivation for trying to _remove_ rules-defined boundaries for determining when a pledge is or is not broken. I’m convinced we’ll never get it right, and that any formal criteria are liable to have this sort of edge case lurking in them, so replacing formal criteria with a general system that leaves it to the players to determine what constitutes a broken pledge is, in my view, likely to capture the intent of pledges (to be binding promises) more perfectly. Informally, I endorse ProofTechnique as judge for this CFJ, if e is willing to do so. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
