========================= Criminal Case 2092 =========================
tusho violated rule 101 by abridging, reducing, limiting, or
removing Blind, Deaf and Mute's rights.
Called by ehird: 16 Jul 2008 23:17:47 GMT
Defendant ehird informed: 17 Jul 2008 05:59:40 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended: 17 Jul 2008 17:07:47 GMT
Assigned to Taral: 19 Jul 2008 00:29:19 GMT
Taral recused: 25 Jul 2008 16:44:49 GMT
Assigned to omd: 27 Jul 2008 22:36:50 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by omd: 10 Aug 2008 00:06:22 GMT
2008/7/17 Quazie :
> 1. The following is a public contract, known as Blind, Deaf, and Mute.
> 2. Members of this contract are known as partners.
> 3. This contract devolves all obligations onto its members.
> 4. No partner may act on this partnerships behalf.
> 5. If ever "Blind, Deaf, and Mute" incurrs an obligation, any player
> may act emself to fulfil this obligation, noting that they are doing
> so instead of "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
> 6. Only Quazie and tusho may join this partnership.
> 7. Partners may change this contract by announcement, without
> objection from another partner.
> 8. When both Quazie and tusho join this partnership, it registers as
> "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
> I agree to Blind, Deaf, and Mute.
I agree to Blind, Deaf and Mute.
Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:
I plead GUILTY:
vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
It certainly does not.
Judge omd's Arguments:
>> 1. The following is a public contract, known as Blind, Deaf, and Mute.
>> 2. Members of this contract are known as partners.
>> 3. This contract devolves all obligations onto its members.
>> 4. No partner may act on this partnerships behalf.
>> 5. If ever "Blind, Deaf, and Mute" incurrs an obligation, any player
>> may act emself to fulfil this obligation, noting that they are doing
>> so instead of "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
This is a spectacularly poor mechanism for devolving "Blind, Deaf, and
Mute" (BDM)'s obligations, because most of the obligations that might
be put on someone (such as a partnership) cannot be satisfied by
another player acting emself to fufil them. Perhaps, if the BDM is
required to send some chits to a player, that player might agree to
accept chits from the BDM's parties instead, but e is under no
obligation to do so, and Rule-defined obligations can never be
substituted this way. Also, if neither Quazie nor tusho was a player,
the persons required to fufil BDM's obligations would not even be
allowed to make a token attempt to do so.
However, whether or not a partnership's members CAN fufil its
obligations is not relevant to whether or not those obligations
devolve onto them. Instead, this is determined by whether the members
SHALL fufil them. The obligations of BDM become obligations of its
members, by clause 3, and that's enough to serve both the letter and
spirit of Rule 2145: if BDM ever incurs any obligations whatsoever,
its members can be punished for not fufiling them. BDM is, therefore,
a partnership and a person.
>> 8. When both Quazie and tusho join this partnership, it registers as
>> "Blind, Deaf, and Mute"
However, BDM is not a player. It is customary not to allow contracts
to take actions automatically.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, Quazie and tusho allegedly violated this
clause of R101:
Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
remove a person's defined rights.
Although the rule says "may", in context it clearly means CAN. An
attempt to abridge, reduce, limit, or remove the rights of BDM would
be ineffective, not a Rules violation.
Because BDM is not a player, it has no Rule 101 (vi.) rights; I
think that Rule 101 (vi.) would prevent it from becoming a player.
Therefore, I judge INNOCENT in CFJs 2091-92.