============================== CFJ 1856 ==============================
Steve Wallace is a player
Called by Zefram: 29 Dec 2007 21:38:07 GMT
Assigned to G.: 07 Jan 2008 12:13:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 08 Jan 2008 21:19:04 GMT
Gratuitous Evidence by G.:
I hereby request that H. pikhq or H. Steve Wallace formally provide evidence
to myself (publicly as judge, or privately as Notary) as to both the
personhood of Steve Wallace and the nature of the contract between yourselves.
Note that I will evaluate the balance of probabilities based in part on the
quality of the evidence (e.g. "proof that submitted emails, etc. were indeed
sent at the times indicated, etc.") Please provide these within 4 days of
this notice for consideration.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
The preamble of R101 states:
"Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
remove a person's defined rights."
This Court finds that "no interpretation of Agoran law" requires that
Agoran law must be interpreted such that we MUST BE ABLE, given the
limits of the reach of Agoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably
sure that a person's defined rights are not limited or reduced by a
precedent or decision. In so ensuring, the Court may set standards of
evidence that may be stricter than standards of evidence for other
Two Agoran rights are:
iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit,
willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by
an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has
not had the reasonable opportunity to review.
Contracts (R1742) clearly fall under the category of "agreements" in
R101. In order for the Agoran Courts to fulfill their R101 protective
duties, the courts must have sufficient evidence that persons are aware
and consenting. Therefore, the courts must find any contract NULL and
VOID and wholly unenforceable in Agora if there is not sufficient
evidence that a person consents, has had an opportunity to review the
contract, AND has had an opportunity to review the rules governing the
adjudication of the contract (e.g. the Rules of Agora themselves).
Allowing contract review without Rules review would not wholly remove
the right of informed consent, but it would "abridge" the right, as is
forbidden by the R101 preamble. This is especially true if the contract
amounts to a fairly informal "handshake deal" as is the case here.
Further, the Court finds that if "registering as a Player on my behalf"
is part of the contract, then "obeying the Rules of Agora", and the
Rules themselves are a part of the contract for which reasonable
opportunity to review must be demonstrated.
So the Courts are right to set standards of evidence required to show
that a person is aware of the Rules of Agora before entering into an
Agoran contract that involves becoming a player. But what standard to
set for Rules review? This court finds that a reasonable standard is
that a person must demonstrate DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the FORA, either
through posting, subscription, or watcher request, before we can accept
eir signing of such a contract. There may be further restrictions based
on the timeliness of the presence, but that is not addressed here.
For many other matters, Agoran tradition is to accept at face value
statements from players that are not strictly provable in the e-mail
medium. However, in the case of one person representing another, this
is insufficient to ensure that R101 is abided by and respected. Further,
it is in the best interests of the game to require that direct knowledge
of the fora be demonstrated PRIOR to any entering of such a contract.
Note that this does not affect partnerships, which themselves are
contracts made (to date) between persons with a reasonable degree of
Agoran presence. Also, previous CFJs on the validity of a contracted
action have involved people with noticeable Agoran presence (e.g. Peekee),
so those precedents are not affected by this.
There is insufficient proof of an Steve Wallace's direct knowledge of
the fora which predates the contracted action, so the contract in
question is NULL and VOID. This Court finds FALSE.