status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3856
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3856 ===============================
Any attempt to exile a player or claim a welcome package fails
under omd's contract.
==========================================================================
Caller: R. Lee
Barred: Murphy
Judge: Aris
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by R. Lee: 23 Jun 2020 06:22:03
Assigned to Aris: 23 Jun 2020 06:36:08
Judged FALSE by Aris: 30 Jun 2020 06:11:05
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
The provision omd cites is very very clearly a block to any
"Change" in the CONTRACT'S text, rather than any change or action in the
entire game state. This is clear and unambiguous, but the best interests of
the game clearly are for contracts not to be able to block any type of
action. To demonstrate this,
I consent to and create the following contract:
{
R. Lee consents, assents to, wants to, and does automatically amend this
contract
by prepending the Secret Word, each time any of the following occur:
-The rule called :"Welcome Package" is amended
-Anyone votes FOR a proposal that would amend the rule "Welcome Package"
If omd was wearing a hat at the time this contract was created, then the
Secret
Word is "Hello". Otherwise, it is "Goodbye".
}
I think this contract very clearly makes the "best interests of the game"
point.
Caller's Evidence:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:45 PM omd via agora-business wrote:
> Well, here goes nothing.
>
> I consent to and create the following contract:
> {
> omd consents, assents to, wants to, and does automatically amend this
> contract
> by prepending the Secret Word, each time any of the following occur:
>
> - A contract other than this one is created or amended.
> - Any player is exiled.
> - Any player receives a Welcome Package.
>
> If omd was wearing a hat at the time this contract was created, then the
> Secret
> Word is "Hello". Otherwise, it is "Goodbye".
>
> [This is an attempt to exploit the following provision:
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause
> the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
> unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
>
> It's based on a discussion on Discord which seemed to conclude that
> consent is
> not just a condition for modifying contracts but the mechanism for it,
> under
> the relevant clause of Rule 1742:
>
>
> A contract may be modified,
> including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all
> existing parties.
>
> Note that Rule 1742 does not provide any other mechanism, so if consent is
> not
> a mechanism, amending and terminating contracts is probably impossible by
> Rule
> 2125.
>
> If consent is a mechanism, Rule 2519 item 2 (and to some extent item 4)
> suggests that contracts can trigger it automatically.
>
> Whether this actually succeeds at blocking actions depends, I suppose, on
> how
> you define "change", "cause", and "unambiguously".]
> }
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Aris's Arguments:
omd's exploit is the most clever I have seen during my time as a player.
Rule 1742, "Contracts" says, in part, "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
any change that would cause the full provisions or parties of a contract to
become publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect." omd
attempted
to exploit this provision by consenting to an automatic amendment of a
contract
to publicly unavailable text when certain events took place. Eir theory
was that the events would count as a "change" and then be blocked
by Rule 1742. Specifically, omd attempted to block both the exiling of players
and the claiming of Welcome Packages.
The word "any" is expansive. "any change that would cause the full
provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable" could
plausibly be multiple changes, one of which caused another. I am not at all
convinced that "cause" implies proximate causation in this case. It may
simply require mechanical causation (i.e. that the change trigger
the effect by operation of law). If the rule had meant "proximately caused",
I believe it would either have said so or used other phrasing to make that
intent clear.
However, I find the caller's arguments with respect to the word "change"
convincing. Indeed, while on a first reading I was believed omd's attempt
worked, on a second reading I identified the same problem the caller did.
A "change" clearly refers to an actual change to the gamestate, rather than
a game action. Thus "any change that would cause the full provisions
or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable" refers to the change
to the contract, not the action that triggered that change. If there were
any ambiguity, the strong interest of the game in stopping players from
blocking arbitrary game actions would resolve it in favor of my
interpretation.
One final note. Even if everything I'd said in the last paragraph were
incorrect, omd would not have blocked exiles. Rule 1742, "Contracts" is power
2.5. Rule 2556, "Penalties", which provides for exile, is power 3.0. Thus,
even with the "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" clause, Rule 1742
cannot block exiles. On the other hand, it could block Welcome Packages,
which are only provided for by Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", at a power of
1.0.
However, I have ruled that omd simply misapplied the relevant provision of
Rule 1742. Thus, eir contract could not block anything. FALSE.
Judge Aris's Evidence:
Rule 1742/22 (Power=2.5)
Contracts
Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may
publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention
that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such
an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified,
including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all
existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the
consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the
number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a
person to become a party to a contract without eir consent.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause
the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted
with reference only to information that is either publicly or
generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the
provisions are known as the annex.
A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body:
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
* By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract.
* By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a
specified recipient.
Rule 2499/7 (Power=1)
Welcome Packages
If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
announcement.
When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins and
one of each type of Card defined in the rules.
Rule 2556/1 (Power=3)
Penalties
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win
the game.
The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is reduced
by 1 for every 3 blots in eir possession.
A player CAN, with 7 days notice, deregister (exile) a specified
player (the outlaw) who has more than 40 blots.
==========================================================================
