============================== CFJ 1936 ==============================
The judge in an equity case CAN make the equation a contest by
stating it is one.
Called by Wooble: 07 May 2008 19:00:27 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 08 May 2008 21:36:26 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy: 16 May 2008 06:14:40 GMT
Appealed by ais523: 16 May 2008 15:48:18 GMT
Appealed by ehird: 20 May 2008 21:06:22 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli: 20 May 2008 21:06:22 GMT
Appeal 1936a: 20 May 2008 21:08:11 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal: 13 Jun 2008 16:21:47 GMT
Rule 2136 provides the only mechanism in the rules for
making a contract into a Contest. Rule 2169 provides that:
valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements
that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.
The parties to an arbitrary contract could not make an agreement that
was a contest without jumping through further hoops to make it one.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
> Contest is a class of contract. Two hypothetical contracts that are
> identical in text, where one is a non-contest, and the other is a
> contest with a specific contestmaster, are two distinct "possible
> agreements that the parties could make". R2136 doesn't limit the
> available judgements any further than that, so both are options.
Rule 2136 regulates the means of making a contract into a contest.
This reasonably implies that the creation of a contest is regulated
by a specific CAN, and that other mechanisms that manipulate contracts
can't arbitrarily make then into contests. Also, this isn't a "possible
agreement" that the parties on their own could make: they can only
make it without 3 Objections, which clearly requires the participation
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
It is a possible agreement that the parties on eir own could make;
in fact, it is easier to make a contract a contest if the parties
on eir own are the only players involved. If root was the only
player in Agora, then e could trivially create a contest because
the 3 objections could never happen. Rule 2136 explains how a
contract can be made into a contest; it specifies how that CAN
happen. Rule 2169 is more powerful than it is, explaining that if
a group of players could do something by emselves (and it is
possible for a player to create a contest by emself, in fact
failing requires other players to object, which involves more
players) and that something creates a contract, then that contract
is a legal outcome for an equity case. Based on that evidence,
Rule 2169 should win, being able to create a contest (which, in
this case, root could have done without objection, and therefore
could have done by emself; it's only when multiple players get
involved that the contest creation fails). If creating a contest
required support rather than no objection, though, then my
argument would be incorrect.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I interpret Rule 2169 as "the possible agreements that the parties
could make [solely by agreeing to be bound by that agreement]", which
makes the statement false in general. The statement is a blanket
statement, so the existence of specific situations in which it would be
true (i.e. the judge's statement completes the without-3-objections
method defined in the first sentence of CFJ 2136) is insufficient.
Appellant ais523's Arguments:
This interpretation of
rule 2169 appears to have been used purely to prevent a scam, without any
basis in the rules for it; that text in square brackets is not in the
rules, and nothing in the rules seems to imply that text into the rules.
Therefore, I do not believe that Judge Murphy's interpretation of the rule
was correct, and therefore that caused the result of the CFJ to be