If I have not already numbered and assigned the below CFJ, I do as indicated
below:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 14:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
To: Agora Official <agora-official@agoranomic.org>
Subject: [Arbitor] CFJ 3588 assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> "Judicial Activism: the Contract
> has 'fulfilled its purpose, does not specify any gamestate affecting
> statements, or otherwise seems unlikely to be used' (quote from rule
> 2522)".
This is CFJ 3588. I assign it to Alexis.
> This is a very straightforward question, I contend that it has not
> fulfilled its purpose of significantly improving the game. It
> specifies a gamestate affecting statement (what on earth does it mean
> to specify a statement? Aris needs to examine eir addiction to the
> word specify) in that it specifies who may join the contract, which
> affects the gamestate and the Notary's report. And it is likely to be
> used, as I am using it now.
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:03 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also call a much more straightforward CFJ with shinies donated to
> > charity on the following statement: "Judicial Activism: the Contract
> > has 'fulfilled its purpose, does not specify any gamestate affecting
> > statements, or otherwise seems unlikely to be used' (quote from rule
> > 2522)".
> >
> > This is a very straightforward question, I contend that it has not
> > fulfilled its purpose of significantly improving the game. It
> > specifies a gamestate affecting statement (what on earth does it mean
> > to specify a statement? Aris needs to examine eir addiction to the
> > word specify) in that it specifies who may join the contract, which
> > affects the gamestate and the Notary's report. And it is likely to be
> > used, as I am using it now.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:59 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I create and pend the following proposal with shinies (donated to charity)
> >> Title: Hopefully you guys all vote for this
> >> AI: 3
> >> Author: V.J. Rada
> >> Text: {Award V.J. Rada a black Ribbon. Enact a new power 3.1 rule
> >> entitled "ayyyyyyyyyy dictatorship lmao" with the text "Agora's
> >> official subtitle is Agora: Banana Republic. V.J. Rada is the
> >> Dictator, and has the power to award anyone e likes a Victory and any
> >> patent title. Also, eir voting power is 100. Also, e is hereby
> >> recognized as an abundantly cool dude. From two weeks after the
> >> adoption of this rule, any player may cause it to repeal itself by
> >> announcement."}
> >>
> >> I call a CFJ with Shinies (donated to the community chest) and with
> >> the statement: "The pending of the above proposal is illegal because
> >> it breaks the obligations imposed by the Contract named Judicial
> >> Activism: the Contract"
> >>
> >> ====Bar====
> >> I bar PSS.
> >>
> >> ====Evidence====
> >> Judicial Activism: the Contract has the following text.
> >> Parties:
> >> V.J Rada
> >> Private Asset Classes: None
> >>
> >> Text:
> >> Any player may become a party to this contract by announcement.
> >>
> >> This contract shall not be interpreted in any way by its plain text,
> >> but
> >> instead is only to be interpreted based on common sense and the game's
> >> best
> >> interests
> >>
> >> ====Arguments====
> >> Before the real crazy stuff starts, there is a preliminary matter to
> >> resolve, stemming from rule 2523, the rule which actually allows
> >> contracts to make things illegal. The rule states that "[t]he text of
> >> a contract can specify obligations upon its parties". The word
> >> "specify" is ambiguous. Specify is most often defined by dictionaries
> >> as "to state clearly" or something similar. Judicial Activism: the
> >> Contract certainly states no obligations clearly, so it is possible it
> >> imposes no obligations. However, it would be a better interpretation
> >> of "specify", in context, to interpret it simply as saying that a
> >> contract may impose obligations. To be sure, in the sentence "by
> >> specifying a set of players", the set of players must be stated
> >> clearly. But in a context so malleable as "obligations", imposing a
> >> particular non-vagueness rule stemming from the word "specify" is not
> >> the correct course. Consider the sentence "Jeff was told to specify
> >> what would happen if he was away". If Jeff said that either John or
> >> Amanda would have to do his job, his instructions would still be
> >> followed, even if they did not state specifically which should do the
> >> job. Specify here is to give information about, and the Collins
> >> Dictionary explanation, stating to specify is to "give information
> >> about what is required" backs this up. Agora will, consistent with
> >> context and ordinary use, contradict the consensus of dictionaries
> >> (see, eg, CFJ 3527 defining an amount as an integer), and should do so
> >> here, allowing Judicial Activism: the Contract, to specify obligations
> >> despite none appearing specifically in its text. JA;tC, if it can be
> >> interpreted according to its instructions, gives information about
> >> what should be illegal under it, and that should be enough to satisfy
> >> the word "specify".
> >>
> >> The second threshold issue also stems from rule 2523, which states
> >> that " If whether an action is permitted or forbidden by a contract is
> >> indeterminate...it is presumptively permitted.". While the
> >> permissibility of any action under JA;tC is not clearly stated in its
> >> text, common sense and best interests of the game are clearly
> >> determinable, and are determined by CFJs regularly. Even if conduct
> >> prohibited by JA;tC were not determinable, such conduct is only
> >> "PRESUMPTIVELY permissable" (emphasis added). Presumptively
> >> permissible does not mean permissible in all circumstances (otherwise
> >> "presumptively" would be surplusage). Presumptions can be rebutted.
> >> In this circumstance, the intent of the drafter to render some conduct
> >> illegal, and the fact that e is the only party to the contract, should
> >> rebut the presumption.
> >>
> >> Another threshold question is whether the direction of JA;tC to have
> >> itself be interpreted only by common sense and the game's best
> >> interests, and never by its text, should be followed. The answer is it
> >> should. "Interpreting Contracts", rule 2525 states that " [a] contract
> >> should generally be interpreted according to its text, including any
> >> clauses giving directions for its interpretation or construction.".
> >> The interpretation clause in this contract is extreme, but should
> >> clearly be followed. Even if it is not a "direction[] for
> >> interpretation or construction", rule 2525 uses the word "generally"
> >> as an escape clause from the entire sentence (generally should be
> >> given an interpretation that renders it non-surplus). If there was
> >> ever a contract that should be exempted from this requirement in the
> >> interest of justice, it's this one.
> >>
> >> The next question is, do the two factors enumerated in JA;tC's text
> >> and the three non-textual factors (including one factor with four
> >> sub-factors it's factorception) enumerated in rule 2525 lead to a
> >> conclusion that illegalising my above conduct would be a good idea? I
> >> will now go through the factors one by one.
> >>
> >> Common sense is almost impossible to argue about, quantify, or specify
> >> (ha), but to me it seems common sense that pending a proposal with the
> >> sole effect of making one player the dictator for a short time is a
> >> bad idea, will make the game less fun if it passes, and will lead to
> >> scams that possibly exploit terrible problems with the rules. It also
> >> seems common sense that such conduct should be deterred in some way.
> >> As much as it is possible to win an argument about common sense, the
> >> argument that my conduct is illegal does.
> >>
> >> It is also in the best interest of the game to have the proposal above
> >> be illegal. The only purpose it would serve is making the game less
> >> fun for two weeks, if passed. This would significantly disrupt the
> >> game without much consequence. Even if the proposal did not pass, it
> >> would create work for everybody in trying to kill it, without
> >> provoking any interesting discussion. It is clear that pending the
> >> proposal above is against the game's best interests. It is also in the
> >> game's best interests to reasonably deter behavior which may harm
> >> Agora, and the way that this contract can deter that behaviour is by
> >> prohibiting it.
> >>
> >> The consideration of "justice" under 2525 would, in many
> >> circumstances, cut against the illegality of the above proposal or the
> >> interpretation of my contract in the way I am advocating. This is
> >> because people should not be punished for infractions they had no fair
> >> notice of, and the text of JA;tC provides no fair notice of the
> >> illegality of any conduct. Having said that, I explicitly engaged in
> >> the conduct I allege is illegal for the purpose of possible
> >> illegality. It is clear that, in this circumstance, I had fair notice.
> >>
> >> The rule 2525 consideration of "intent of the parties" is clear. I am
> >> the only party to this contract. I intend for this contract to make
> >> illegal the creation of facetious scam proposals. I at least intended
> >> it to have "teeth" and strong effect, as evidenced by the title. I
> >> invited Judicial Activism explicitly.
> >>
> >> The other rule 2525 consideration of "the principles governing rule
> >> interpretation" should not come into play. Those principles have
> >> either already been analysed or have been specifically disclaimed by
> >> JA:tC's terms. It would be wrong to consider the rule 217 principles
> >> in the interpretation of JA;tC (although obviously correct to apply
> >> them in the preliminary rule interpretation questions).
> >>
> >> I respectfully submit that this CFJ should be found TRUE: my conduct is
> >> illegal.
> >> ..
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
