============================== CFJ 2220 ==============================
If Ivan Hope takes actions in the PerlNomic game which cause em to
become an active player of PerlNomic, e will become a party to the
PerlNomic Partnership contract.
Called by Wooble: 11 Oct 2008 22:28:08 GMT
Assigned to G.: 16 Oct 2008 05:48:22 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by G.: 20 Oct 2008 05:27:19 GMT
e has had a reasonable opportunity to review the contract,
and can easily avoid triggering its mechanism for joining by not
becoming active in PerlNomic.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
(Note: the term "active" is not relevant in the contract in question, so
I will assume it just means "a PerlNomic player").
According to the Notary's report of 3 Oct 2008 and the Notary's current
website, Clause 7 of the PerlNomic agreement reads in part :
7. New PerlNomicites may be admitted to this agreement by joining the
PerlNomic game through the game's adduser mechanism or any future
mechanism that allows persons to become PerlNomic Players.
Here, the term "any future mechanism" may refer a very wide degree of
activities, including some that are automatic or nonprotective of R101
rights, including retroactive methods. Therefore, this case must consider
"any future mechanism" as the phrase is part of the current contract.
There is no guarantee that any/all possible future mechanisms that would
make Ivan Hope a player of PerlNomic would be sufficiently protective of
R101 rights to cause em to become a party of the Agoran contract, although
mechanisms that are triggered by Ivan Hope's free will with reasonably-
informed intent (e.g. if "adduser", however it works, is activated under
eir control/request) generally would do so. UNDETERMINED.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
Ugh! The text of the contract on the Notary's website was wrong, and I
only just noticed. (I've uploaded a corrected version.) However, I don't
think it affects Goethe's reasoning.
It's now possible to become a member of the PNP by, and only by,
performing an action in PerlNomic that causes activity. All such actions
require knowledge of the member in question's PerlNomic username and
password, and active free will by someone to enter them into PerlNomic
and perform the action. I would argue that if someone guessed Warrigal's
password and entered it, that would not automatically cause Warrigal to
become a member of the contract (and thus the PNP's announcement to the
PF of the change would be ineffective), but if ihope deliberately does
something in PerlNomic, such as voting, that causes activation (with
full knowledge of the consequences, as e has), then they do become party
to the contract. This is basically the same reasoning as Goethe's
judgement, and thus I won't appeal it merely because it's based on
invalid data; if Goethe thinks that this makes a material difference,
then I will support an appeal if e initiates it.