==============================  CFJ 1855  ==============================

    The AFO is not part of the basis of Agora's Child, but is a partner
    of Agora's Child.


Caller:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by pikhq:                        29 Dec 2007 05:29:31 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        07 Jan 2008 12:13:30 GMT
omd recused:                            14 Jan 2008 15:51:54 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     14 Jan 2008 15:51:54 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 15 Jan 2008 18:25:53 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The AFO ceased to be a member of Agora's Child.
The AFO is still named as an Ambassador of Agora's Child, and thereby is a
partner by the rules of Agora (due to the duties of an Ambassador in Agora's


Judge woggle's Arguments:

The AFO is trivially not part of the basis of Agora's Child because
there is no way for any person's basis to contain a non-first-class

Though the exact definition of partner is unclear, being a partner in
a partnership would clearly require one or more of:
(a) being a party to the contract; and
(b) having the partnership's legal obligations devolved onto oneself.

If the AFO in fact ceased to be a party to Agora's Child, then it
could not have Agora's Child's legal obligations devovled onto itself:
Precedent in CFJ 1686 shows that it is impossible for non-parties to
an agreement to violate the agreement (even if they purport to act on
things internal to the agreement). Though Agora's Child recognized, as
a legal fiction within itself, the AFO as an ambassador onto which its
obligations are devolved, absent a requirement in the Agoran rules for
the AFO to follow this agreement to which it is not a party, the
obligations are not devolved onto the AFO for the purposes of the
rules of Agora. If the AFO was not a party, it could even act on the
behalf of Agora's Child without being in any way bound to fulfill
Agora's Child's obligations.

The AFO purported to cease to be a player through the internal
mechanisms of Agora's Child. The clause in Agora's Child that permits
this is:
> > '113.' A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than
> > to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the
> > judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.
It would seem against the spirit of this clause (which takes
precedence over the clause which devolved Agora's Child's obligations
onto the AFO) for the AFO to continue to be bound in any way by the
Agora's Child agreement after forfeiting. Furthermore, the text of
Agora's Child does not explicitly define who the parties to the
agreement are; however, its rule 101 (All players must always abide by
all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in
effect.), its mechanisms for adding and removing players, and that the
AFO was apparently considered a player by the internal mechanisms of
the Agora's Child agreement when it was formed between pikhq and the
AFO strongly suggest that Agora's Child's players are equivalent to
its parties. Thus, I conclude that by ceasing to be a player in Agora's Child,
the AFO ceased to be a party to Agora's Child despite text in Agora's
Child that might appear to continue to bind it.