Index ← 2624 CFJ 2625 2626 → text
==============================  CFJ 2625  ==============================

    Earlier today I retracted my vote on proposal 6397.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  ə
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       06 Jul 2009 18:07:48 GMT
Assigned to ə:                          10 Jul 2009 05:49:53 GMT
Judged TRUE by ə:                       14 Jul 2009 19:59:59 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The issue here is about how much evidence needs to be given
for act-on-behalf to work. Contracts can generally use their own
definitions; but what about private parts of public contracts?
Certainly, if this works, it shouldn't be able to.


Caller's Evidence:

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> That aside, it's a more general issue.  Let's say I have a detailed ...
> >
> > I've agreed to a private contract with ais523 called Fookie II.  It
> > contains the following text:
> >
> > 4. Any party to this contract CAN
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk
> > (as defined by this contract) on behalf of any other party by
> > announcement.
> >
> > I hereby act on behalf of ais523 to retract eir vote on Proposal 6397.
> > Note: This fails if Fookie II does not define nkep appropriately.
> Sure.  Works fine.  And then ais523 has X amount of time to protest if
> nkep doesn't mean what you claim it means.  If ais523 doesn't protest,
> the public doesn't need to know what nkep means, except that all
> parties believe it allows the PoA to function.  -G.

But what if I protest? Does the action happen anyway? If not, then
there's no point in putting the act-on-behalf clause in the contract;
just put in a SHALL, as it comes to the same thing anyway.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

If the alleged grantee is obviously paying attention to the
game and doesn't protest that it fails, our current custom is to prima
facie assume that it works [CFJ 1290 is relevant in cases where a game-
participating grantee is pointedly silent].  This doesn't seem particularly
dangerous, if we allow private contracts in the first place we are
allowing all kinds of private dealings like this, and we really can't stop
or detect problems in any of them unless a party protests, we pretty much
have to take at face value that if two parties show that a private
understanding was reached, it was.   -G.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

It does not make much sense for secret information to have
effects on platonic gamestate; it is a lot more sensible for private
contracts to be limited to affecting the results of court cases
concerning them indirectly. Breach of a private contract can be
punished; that's enough to make private contracts useful. Also, putting
the onus on a party protesting is very dangerous; they might not be
aware that the action had happened. (At least one non-player is party to
a contract, for instance.) With a public contract, everyone can see for
emself that the action is legal; with a private contract, there is a
huge onus on the parties. (Also, consider private contracts with a
secrecy clause, such as the (possibly defunct) UNDEAD. Suppose one
player acts on behalf of another claiming that a secret contract (which
the second is party to, but the first isn't) allows them to. The second
player cannot then object without revealing information that e is
contractually obligated to keep secret. This gives a rather simple and
efficient method of busting the secrecy of such contracts; object, or be


Judge ə's Arguments:

There are no rules regulating the use of acting on behalf of another
person. Therefore, the use of the mechanism in contracts and as a matter
of custom must be examined.

It has been a generally-held tenet that public contracts can allow
players to act on behalf of their parties (or the contracts themselves)
to an unlimited extent. This seems generally to be the case with private
contracts as well. In the recent question re whether myndzi was a
player, the question was whether or not e was party to (2009-06-15
pikhq) , not whether or not (2009-06-15 pikhq) could grant ais523/pikhq
the ability to register myndzi.

Other examples include two private contracts to which coppro is a party.
While one has never been tested as it was intended for a purpose which
could never be fulfilled, the second (a contract allowing comex to act
on coppro's behalf to automatically request subsidization each week)
appears to be reasonably successful. Note that, as far as coppro knows,
neither of these contracts' existence was ever revealed on a public
forum prior to the message intending to deliver this judgment.

Therefore, it seems clear that Agoran custom and the behavior of
contracts is that all contracts, public or private, can allow an entity
to act on behalf of another. Therefore, it is incumbent on the persons
involved to ensure they are following the rules by not lying publicly
about the ability to act on behalf of another person, and to ensure that
the game state is correct. Many errors will be slowly ratified out of
existence, but big changes to the game state should be dealt with harshly.

There exists evidence that Fookie II actually exists; and no evidence
that it does not allow comex to retract ais523's vote. Therefore this
statement is TRUE.