DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
Never mind, this was really 36_6_4. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca wrote: > Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating > Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this > resolved? > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> == CFJ 3644 == >> >> Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. >> >> >> >> Caller: G. >> Barred: D. Margaux >> >> Judge: twg >> Judgement: TRUE >> >> >> >> History: >> >> Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC >> Assigned to twg:01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC >> Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC >> >> >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? >> It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake >> deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. >> >> 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - >> by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and >> is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows >> it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. >> >> >> >> Judge twg's Arguments: >> >> The caller refers to the following thread of messages: >> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: >> > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona >> wrote: >> > >> > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my >> > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other >> > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to >> transfer >> > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. >> > > >> > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings >> wouldn't >> > > survive and that would be a shame. >> > > >> > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the >> economy >> > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who >> claimed >> > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them >> back >> > > so I don't have to start from scratch. >> > > >> > > ~Corona >> > > >> > -- >> > D. Margaux >> > >> >> This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's >> messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", >> for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the >> caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been >> INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on >> behalf are contracts and zombiehood. >> >> Rule 1742/19 states, in part: >> >> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may >> 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, by agreement between all existing >> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all >> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of >> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule, >> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by >> contract. >> >> We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of >> requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a >> contract: >> >> 1) Is it an "agreement"? >> 2) Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? >> 3) Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be >>binding upon them and governed by the rules? >> >> I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. >> >> First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and >> D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and >> agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition >> of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either >> "a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being >> nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore >> believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the _action_ of >> agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or >> terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the >> confusion caused by this terminology. >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: (on a side note, should I start publishing these again after cases are complete? I'm entering them into the database once a month or so). It's nice to see it all at once, especially if the judge doesn't quote everything relevant. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
This format of report used to be used officially by the Arbitor, when that was going on, it was typically done with a comment field something like this: > Judged TRUE by twg: [as of this message] (on a side note, should I start publishing these again after cases are complete? I'm entering them into the database once a month or so). On the content itself: nice judgement! On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not > 11:24. > > This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got > something wrong. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > == CFJ 3644 == > > > > Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. > > > > > > > > Caller: G. > > Barred: D. Margaux > > > > Judge: twg > > Judgement: TRUE > > > > > > > > History: > > > > Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC > > Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC > > Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC > > > > = > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > > > 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? > > It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake > > deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. > > > > 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - > > by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and > > is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows > > it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. > > > > > > > > Judge twg's Arguments: > > > > The caller refers to the following thread of messages: > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my > > > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other > > > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to > > > > transfer > > > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. > > > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings > > > > wouldn't > > > > survive and that would be a shame. > > > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the > > > > economy > > > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who > > > > claimed > > > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them > > > > back > > > > so I don't have to start from scratch. > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > -- > > > D. Margaux > > > > This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's > > messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", > > for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the > > caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been > > INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on > > behalf are contracts and zombiehood. > > > > Rule 1742/19 states, in part: > > > > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > > 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, by agreement between all existing > > parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all > > parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of > > parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule, > > agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by > > contract. > > > > We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of > > requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a > > contract: > > > > 1. Is it an "agreement"? > > 2. Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? > > 3. Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be > > binding upon them and governed by the rules? > > > > I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. > > > > First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and > > D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and > > agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not 11:24. This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got something wrong. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > == CFJ 3644 == > > Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. > > > > Caller: G. > Barred: D. Margaux > > Judge: twg > Judgement: TRUE > > > > History: > > Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC > Assigned to twg: 01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC > Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC > > = > > Caller's Arguments: > > 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? > It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake > deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. > > 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - > by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and > is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows > it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. > > > > Judge twg's Arguments: > > The caller refers to the following thread of messages: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my > > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other > > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to > > > transfer > > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. > > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings wouldn't > > > survive and that would be a shame. > > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the > > > economy > > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who claimed > > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them back > > > so I don't have to start from scratch. > > > ~Corona > > > > -- > > D. Margaux > > This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's > messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", > for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the > caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been > INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on > behalf are contracts and zombiehood. > > Rule 1742/19 states, in part: > > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > 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, by agreement between all existing > parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all > parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of > parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule, > agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by > contract. > > We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of > requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a > contract: > > 1. Is it an "agreement"? > 2. Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? > 3. Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be > binding upon them and governed by the rules? > > I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. > > First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and > D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and > agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition > of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either > "a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being > nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore > believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the action of > agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or > terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the > confusion caused by this terminology. > > Lacking a rule-bast definition for an "agreement", we thus turn to past > judicial precedent. In CFJ 3315, faced also with the problem of the lack > of definition for this word,
