The below CFJ is 4034. I assign it to ais523.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4034
=============================== CFJ 4034 ===============================
G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that
plan currently does not have G's signature.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: ais523
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 27 May 2023 17:16:28
Assigned to ais523: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
G wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:21=E2=80=AFPM juan wrote:
>>
>> I create the following Rice Plan:
>>
>> {
>> Up Rice: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
>> Down Rice: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
>> }
>>
>> and consent to having my signature put in it.
>
> I consent to the above Rice Plan (to having my signature on it).
>
> If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I withdraw my consent from the
> above Rice Plan.
Caller's Arguments:
Granting consent in most cases is described in Rule 2519/2, and CFJ
4013 recently found that, even without that rule, the general concept
of "giving consent" requires positive evidence of consent, and neither
silence nor ambiguity should be inferred as granting consent.
However, *withdrawing* consent is another matter. In particular, you
CANNOT withdraw consent from a contract without the unanimous
agreement of parties or unless the contract text itself explicitly
allows it. Otherwise, the contract wouldn't be a "binding" agreement,
by the basic definition of "binding".
Rule 2682/0 contains this clause:
> Rice Plans can have
> Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
> Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
> consenting to it.
This *anticipates* that consent could be withdrawn from Rice Plans,
but provides no mechanism for doing so. My belief is that this is
regulated (the Ricemastor tracks signatures) so it is currently
IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw consent. However, in the event that the above
rules text enables the "natural" withdrawal of consent by various
means, there is no standard of communication to be inferred, no "good
of the game" reason to allow for consent withdrawal, and no "good of
the game" reason to decide that the burden of proof is for or against
withdrawal succeeding. So it could quite easily lead to PARADOXICAL
if my conditional above is indeterminate.
Another possibility is that by making a "consent withdrawal" as a
paradoxical statement, is is no longer clear from context as per R2519
that consent exists, which effectively removes it (therefore a withdrawal
attempt that is paradoxical still results in withdrawal).
==========================================================================
