Index ← 1777a CFJ 1777 1778 → text
==============================  CFJ 1777  ==============================

    Partnership 1's Contest allowed any first-class player to become a


Caller:                                 Zefram
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1777a
Decision:                               AFFIRM



Called by Zefram:                       04 Nov 2007 15:52:50 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      04 Nov 2007 21:50:44 GMT
Judged FALSE by Taral:                  11 Nov 2007 20:05:42 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        11 Nov 2007 22:12:31 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     11 Nov 2007 22:24:28 GMT
Appealed by Levi:                       11 Nov 2007 22:45:53 GMT
Appeal 1777a:                           12 Nov 2007 00:25:51 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal:                     18 Nov 2007 02:25:45 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Partnership 1's Contest was announced in a message sent with a Date:
timestamp of 28 Oct 2007 17:40:55.  Specifically, in that message
Partnership 1 announced agreement to be bound by the contract, thus
implicitly inviting players to become parties to it.  The contract
was then formed when the AFO joined it.  However, in the same message
in which the AFO joined the contract, Partnership 1 dissolved it.
That message was sent with a Date: timestamp of 28 Oct 2007 17:41:02.

I question whether this seven-second gap is in fact allowing any
first-class player to become a party.  It appears to in practice exclude
any player who was not aware in advance of what contract would be offered
and when these messages would be posted.

In fact, the timing is possibly even narrower than the authorship
timestamps indicate.  The two messages were logged arriving at at 17:41:10 and 17:41:11.  This is arguably the time
at which the messages were "received in the Public Forum" as CFJ 1112
requires.  Other timestamps along the route from comex to the PF give
varying gaps, the largest of 12 s.  If seems pretty clear that the second
message was already in transit by the time the first one was distributed
by the listserver, thus giving an unforewarned player no chance at all,
no matter how fast eir reactions and typing, to join the contract before
it was dissolved.


Caller's Evidence:

Selected headers from message announcing Partnership 1's Contest:

|Received: from (localhost [])
|        by (Postfix) with ESMTP
|        id 3269A80723; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:41:11 -0600 (CST)
|Received: from ( [])
|        by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBDF8071F
|        for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:41:00 -0600
|Received: from [] (port=60246
|        by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
|        (Exim 4.68)
|        (envelope-from )
|        id 1ImC8F-0001ko-QS
|        for; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:41:05 -0500
|Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 28 Oct 2007
13:40:56 -0400
|Subject: BUS: The first half
|Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:40:55 -0400

Selected headers from message dissolving Partnership 1's Contest:

|Received: from (localhost [])
|        by (Postfix) with ESMTP
|        id 8B8F88073E; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:42:05 -0600 (CST)
|Received: from ( [])
|        by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA668073E
|        for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:41:11 -0600
|Received: from [] (port=60253
|        by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
|        (Exim 4.68)
|        (envelope-from )
|        id 1ImC8S-0001wC-ET
|        for; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:41:17 -0500
|Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 28 Oct 2007
13:41:06 -0400
|Subject: BUS: The second half
|Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:41:02 -0400


Judge Taral's Arguments:

Upon careful examination of the rules, I find only two interpretations
of the Rules plausible:

1. Contests are contracts and therefore require 2 parties to exist, or
2. Contests are not binding.

The crux of the question is whether R2136 contests are also R1742
contracts. Based upon the form (parties and change of parties) and
intent of R2136, I find that they are in fact R1742 contracts.

Therefore, Partnership 1's Contest did not come into existence until
the first contestant joined it. Since there was no time between that
and the dissolution of the contest, this lends extra weight to the
caller's arguments.

The nature of "agreement" is somewhat nebulous -- even R1742 does not
specifically define what constitutes an agreement. The caller argues
that agreement is not just the text, but also the way in which the
agreement is executed. Although this broadening is not specifically
supported by the rules, it is also not contrary to the rules, and I
believe it to be in the best interests of the game.

Therefore I judge the statement FALSE.


Appellant omd's Arguments:

I intend, with two supporters, to appeal this judgement, on the grounds
that it is somewhat incoherent, barely deals with the actual situation,
and fails to set any useful precedent whatsoever for the line between
valid and invalid contests.