status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3888 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3888 =============================== On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge. ========================================================================== Caller: Jason Judge: nix Judgement: FALSE ========================================================================== History: Called by Jason: 14 Nov 2020 17:01:47 Assigned to nix: 15 Nov 2020 20:13:26 Judged FALSE by nix: 28 Nov 2020 20:06:54 ========================================================================== [Message in question] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-November/014385.html Caller's Evidence: Rule 2450/10 (Power=1.7) Pledges If a consenting Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge is ILLEGAL; doing so is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is the value explicitly stated by the pledge, or 2 if the pledge does not explicitly state a value. Allowing a pledge to expire without carrying out an action one pledged to do in it constitutes breaking the pledge. The time window of a pledge is W days, where W is the value explicitly stated by the pledge, or 60 if the pledge does not explicitly state a value. A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window. If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an appropriate fine. The Notary CAN destroy a pledge Without Objection, but SHOULD NOT do so unless the pledge no longer serves any significant purpose. Caller's Arguments: Making a pledge is not a by announcement action, and only require the pledge to be "clear". This means that a player need not clearly and unambiguously specify the action of making a pledge in order to do so, and I imagine it was phrased this way to allow enforcement of natural language promises. In the message referenced in the statement, Jason initiated an auction with an auction method that purports to place a "SHALL" requirement on em. Auction method regulations are not given enforcement power by the rules, and auction methods appear to not be binding upon the auctioneer. However, it may be the case that the requirement was "clear" enough for it to constitute a pledge on the auctioneer publishing them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge nix's Arguments: The caller asks if making a "SHALL" statement that does not have legal effect constitutes a pledge. E correctly points out that a pledge does not need to be by announcement, and so indeed it seems that pledges could be implied. However, this is not the sole limitation the rules put on creating pledges. From Rule 2450, "Pledges": If a consenting Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then [...] Pledges cannot be made by any player, they must be made by a "consenting Player". Agora has a standard of consent in Rule 2519, "Consent": A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if, at the time the action took place: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement; 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously indicates eir consent; 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place. Conditions 2 and 3 are irrelevant in the current discussion. Condition 1 seems unlikely to be met, because Jason did not mention a pledge (or Oath) in the original action, nor has e since stated that e is agreeing to any such pledge. Condition 4 is the trickiest, because it applies a very subjective standard of "reasonably clear from context". From my own personal perspective, I did not interpret any actions in the message-in-question as a pledge when I read the message. I asked Jason if e did, and e responded with: No, I wasn't. I only thought it might be a pledge until a little before I called the CFJ. This response makes me think that even to em it was not "reasonably clear". Thus, it does not appear that, by Agora's own legal standard of consent, Jason was a "consenting Player" when the purported pledge was made. I rule this CFJ FALSE. ==========================================================================