==============================  CFJ 2030  ==============================

    It is possible for ehird to cause woggle to vote by announcing 'On
    behalf of woggle: woggle retracts eir votes on proposal 5568 and
    votes AGAINST x 6 on proposal 5568'.

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

Caller:                                 woggle

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by woggle:                       23 Jun 2008 05:53:50 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     24 Jun 2008 08:19:44 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 24 Jun 2008 17:31:51 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

See also CFJ 1941, CFJ 1832-5.

I reccommend FALSE.

As the authority for contracts to grant acting-on-behalf of authority
(excepting the contracts of non-first-class persons) is game custom only, it
is probably in the best interests of the game if ambiguous attempts at
granting such authority were entirely ineffective. Given the incredible power
of this authority and its lack of basis in the rules, it is better to eir on
the side of clear player intention in determining whether the actions in
question are authorized.

I note that the hypothetical announcement definitely unambiguously specifies
the action, so meets R2208 requirements in spite of the lack of clairty over
whether ehird would be authorized to perform said action.

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

Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following: {
-1. This is a pledge and public contract known as the 'Magical Gnarly
Contract'.
0. woggle CAN terminate or amend this pledge by announcement.
1. Paradox is a switch-like property of woggle, which can only be changed as
described in this contract and has no recordkeeper.
2. The possible values of Paradox are Off (default), Magic, and More Magic.
3. woggle CAN flip eir Paradox to any possible value by announcement.
4a. If woggle's Paradox is Magic it automatically becomes More Magic.
4b. If woggle's Paradox is More Magic, it automatically becomes Magic.
5. Any player CAN act on woggle's behalf to cast or retract votes on proposal
5568 while woggle's Paradox is More Magic.
}

[Yes, I know this is suspiciously similar to someone else's contract.]

I flip my Paradox to Magic.


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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

I judge FALSE. woggle is as far as I can tell not a Monster, and anyway
ehird is not the Mad Scientist, so there appear to be no rules governing
this situation, apart from rule 217. As far as I can tell, game custom is
that actions on behalf of other players are possible if a contract binding
on the player who is acted on behalf of allows it, and there is judicial
precedent in this regard; however, game custom is also that actions fail if
they are unclear. In this case it is unclear whether the contract purports
to allow ehird to be able to act on behalf of woggle at all; therefore, the
contract does not have this effect (acting on behalf is not a rule-defined
action except in the case of acting on behalf of a Monster, Agora, or the
Speaker, and so per rule 217 custom and the interests of the game determine
whether it is legal).

There is one point that I haven't considered so far, which is whether rule
101 allows anyone to act on behalf of everyone else because the rules don't
regulate it (or likewise, whether acting on behalf is impossible in general
because the Mad Scientist can act on behalf of the Monster). The reason I
haven't considered this is simply because it would be against the best
interests of the game in the one hand (immediately after this judgement,
I'll attempt a scam which I expect to fail, to prove empirically that rule
101 does not allow anyone to act on behalf of anyone else), or against
precedent of CFJs (which I defer to) on the other hand (and also the other
possible belief would invalidate all actions ever taken by partnerships,
causing massive gamestate recalculation). Actually, it would be kind-of fun
to rule that acting on behalf is impossible and no partnership ever existed
and the rules do kind of support this in a way (because the Mad Scientist
can act on behalf of the Monster, thus preventing acting on behalf in any
other situation based on one possible reading of the rules), but I find
that there is sufficient inclarity in the situation for rule 217 to take
precedence, and thus I rule that acting on behalf of another player is
possible if and only if that player is bound by a contract specifically and
unambiguously allowing it.

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

Judge ais523's Evidence:

I act on behalf of each other player of Agora (that is, all players except
me) to cause each such player to agree to the following: {{All players SHALL
act as though ais523 had the Patent Title of Puppetmaster. }} (Note that I
believe this to be ineffective, I'm just doing it to demonstrate that it
fails, and encouraging players to think about why that is. The argument for
saying that it works, which I don't agree with, is to say that acting on
behalf isn't regulated and therefore any player can do it.)

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