==============================  CFJ 1709  ==============================

    rule 1742's obligation to act in accordance with contracts is
    binding on non-player parties to R1742 contracts.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              IRRELEVANT

========================================================================

History:

Called by Zefram:                       26 Jul 2007 13:14:35 GMT
Assigned to root:                       26 Jul 2007 13:19:48 GMT
root recused:                           04 Aug 2007 07:27:23 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        04 Aug 2007 07:27:23 GMT
Judged IRRELEVANT by omd:               05 Aug 2007 21:01:31 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 1742 no longer limits contracts to players; non-players can become
parties to a R1742 agreement.  Rule 1742 then purports to oblige all
the parties, including non-players, to abide by that contract.

Rule 1503 says that the rules are to be adjudicated as a binding agreement
*between the players*.  This suggests that the rules are binding only
on players.  CFJ 1686 made a determination to that effect concerning the
scope of contracts, but in that case the contract was not the rules.
Applying R1503 and CFJ 1686 together appears to yield the conclusion
that non-players are not bound by R1742 to abide by their contracts,
and so that a non-player cannot be punished for breach of contract.

Taking this reasoning further, one could argue that this unenforcability
means that non-players cannot effectively become parties to contracts.
Even if they qualify as parties to the contract, the impossibility of
the contract imposing obligations suggests that they can't be members
of a partnership, as defined by rule 2145.

In the other direction, the fact that a contract is formed with the
explicit intent that it be governed by the rules might change the
enforcability.  Presumably such intention includes the intent that
non-player parties be bound by any relevant rules.  This intent goes up
against the power=3 rule 1503.  Clearly R1503 dominates here, but perhaps
its "in general" qualifier provides sufficient room to include non-player
contract parties as implicit parties to the contract of the rules.

========================================================================

Judge omd's Arguments:

I.
[CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.]
Although that CFJ's statement was quite a bit confusing (the CFJ is
available at http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/agora_vanyel1.tar.bz2) the
precedent is clear.  One relevant argument is as follows:
  If R101 were repealed, then it would not be an interpretation of the
  by-then repealed rule that told us that we should all follow the
  rules, but rather the implicit meta-rule which we all agree to respect
  when we agree to play any game at all.

The summary in the Rules says "players", but the logic applies equally to
non-player parties to R1742 agreements who *have* agreed to follow the
Rules and are, in fact, playing the game.  The use in CFJ 825's judges'
arguments of the terms "should", "must", "have to" follow the rules are
equivalent to the ordinary language definition of "binding", yielding a
TRUE result.

II.
R1503 may well actually imply a judgement of FALSE, but only because it
*uses* the term "binding".  It is R1742's "...be governed by the rules."
vs. R1503's

      In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were
      a binding agreement between all Players

However, the sentence uses "in general" and does not explicitly deny the
ability of non-Players to enter into the mentioned binding agreement (such
as with an "only").  While Rule 1503 is more powerful than R1742, it does
not come into conflict with Rule 1742 which implies TRUE.  Additionally, I
interpret the repealing of Rule 1503 subsequent to the calling of this CFJ
as "game custom" type evidence that its language is obsolete.

III.
IF the rest of the arguments say TRUE, R101 (v) does use the word 'bound'
and may cause the hypothetical agreement to sometimes be non-binding if
the non-player just agreed to the agreement intending that it be
governed "under Agoran law", and maybe doesn't have an Internet
connection, leading to a judgement of UNDECIDABLE.  However, Rule 1503
(with equal power) says:
      The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima
      facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and
      privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to
      be bound by the rules.
I interpret this as applying to other persons and their rights and
privileges where no other rule attempts to contradict it, and therefore
Rule 101 (v) does not apply and UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate.

IV.
R1742 says that they must intend that it be "governed" by the rules, i.e.
the contract implicitly includes the rules, and if the party intends that
the contract (which includes the rules) be binding, R1742 would state that
it is binding, and therefore yield TRUE.

V.
If Rule 217 applies, especially because many of these arguments (including
this one) are slippery and a matter of the judge's opinion, I would find
the "best interests of the game" to include a judgement of TRUE.

VI.
Most of the preceding assumes that "binding" is (a) defined as "binding
under Agoran law", and (b) not specifically defined even in this case.
This should be examined.  The only things that are described as "binding"
under Agoran law are binding agreements.
      Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
      themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them

Compare to a similar but non-binding agreement: the only difference defined
in Rule 1742 is that failing to abide by a binding agreement is a Rule
violation.  It can be argued that Rule 1742 defines "binding" in this
manner.  Violating the rules is obviously a rule violation, therefore the
rules are prima facie binding to any entity that has any obligations under
them.

Therefore I support a judgement of TRUE on this CFJ.  However,

VII.
The veracity of the statement of this CFJ has no effect, as far as I can
tell, on the game at that time or at this because of the replacement of
civil cases with criminal cases.  Something that has no effect on the game
is not relevant to it.

========================================================================