==============================  CFJ 1933  ==============================

    Due to the LAND GRAB pledge, Goethe is the recordkeeper for the
    types of crops currencies referenced by the Agoran Agricultural
    Association contract.

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

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           02 May 2008 00:20:52 GMT
Assigned to root:                       02 May 2008 01:10:08 GMT
root recused:                           16 May 2008 05:17:24 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      16 May 2008 05:33:33 GMT
ehird recused:                          30 May 2008 07:28:00 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                30 May 2008 07:30:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by Machiavelli:            02 Jun 2008 23:14:13 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Two contracts conflict on the identity of the backing document
for crops.  The Rules do not provide means of determining precedence.  The
LAND GRAB contract itself claims precedence over the AAA, while graciously
allowing the AAA to use the currency.  Game custom generally respects claims
of precedence between instruments of equal power.

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

Caller's Evidence:

I make the following pledge, called LAND GRAB

  1.  Each type of Crop is a currency. Ownership of Crops is restricted
  to Players. There are ten types of Crops, represented by the numbers 0
  through 9. Contracts to the contrary nonwithstanding, I (Goethe) am the
  recordkeeper of Crops.

  2.  I grant the AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION the ability to manipulate
  crops in any way that does not conflict with this Contract.

  3.  Contracts to the contrary nonwithstanding, I CAN create, destroy,
  or transfer crops in any way by announcement.

  4.  I CAN terminate this contract at any time by announcement.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by root:

Blah.  I submit as gratuitous arguments for this judgement the
following dialogue, which I had intended to formulate as arguments
back when I was assigned to this case:

root wrote:

> Arguments against:
>
> There are multiple persons who have agreed to the Agoran Agricultural
> Association contract but not to the LAND GRAB pledge, and at least one
> of those (me) refuses to agree to any part of the LAND GRAB pledge.
> Therefore, a redefinition of AAA-defined entities as provided for by
> the LAND GRAB pledge would be binding at least one person to the LAND
> GRAB pledge (or some sub-agreement thereof) against that person's
> will.  Such an interpretation is therefore illegal, per Rule 101.


Goethe wrote:

> I don't really expect my scam to work, but I don't think your argument
> here works either.  Reason:  there's nothing in this argument to say
> why the AAA>LG instead of LG>AAA and without that, the reverse could
> be said (favoring the AAA makes the LAND GRAB work against my will
> therefore against R101).  So I think you have to extend this farther to
> explain why the AAA has primacy/lead claim to crops.


root wrote:

> I don't think it does.  The AAA creates a legal fiction of crops that
> all of its members agree to.  The LG creates a different legal fiction
> of crops that all of its members agree to.  The two sets of members
> are totally disjoint, so in fact there is no conflict; the LG can't
> refer to the same crops as the AAA, because the LG members have not
> even agreed to recognize the legal fiction that the AAA's crops exist.

> If the intersection of the two contracts were not empty, things would
> be hairier.  In that case, I think I would argue that by agreeing to
> two conflicting definitions of crops, the intersecting members would
> simultaneously be in violation of both contracts.

> In retrospect, I think this current line of reasoning would have been
> much more suitable in CFJs 1922-3 as well.


Goethe wrote:

> Oh I see, you're not saying that my claims to crops are null and void,
> you're saying that I could start manipulating crops and producing reports
> (even starting from the AAA's current holdings) and the AAA could do the
> same, just ignoring my reports and manipulations, and we could co-exist
> quite happily despite my occasional claim to be the "true" reporter of
> crops...  I'll buy that (I should have joined the AAA first! :) )

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