Index ← 3168 CFJ 3169 3170 → text
==============================  CFJ 3169  ==============================

    The Prisoner is a player.


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  FKA441344
Judgement:                              TRUE

Judge:                                  FKA441344

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by G.:                           16 Feb 2012 17:43:35 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  24 Feb 2012 00:29:57 GMT
Judged TRUE by FKA441344:               27 Feb 2012 23:58:41 GMT
Reconsideration requested by G.:        28 Feb 2012 01:54:58 GMT
Reconsideration requested by FSX:       28 Feb 2012 12:26:19 GMT
Reconsideration requested by ehird:     28 Feb 2012 12:51:35 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  28 Feb 2012 12:51:35 GMT
FKA441344 recused:                      29 Feb 2012 07:41:38 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     09 Mar 2012 02:58:53 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  10 Mar 2012 07:10:53 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

E never explicitly consented (R101iii).


Caller's Evidence:

I create a slave golem named "The Prisoner".
I state, for the record, that I will never cause The Prisoner to


Judge FKA441344's Arguments:

The Prisoner is an entity defined by the rules, which acts when the
rules say it acts. Per case 2196b, phrases in the rules generally mean
something rather than nothing. Therefore, when the rules caused The
Prisoner to be a player, they implicitly caused it to explicitly
consent to become a player. I judge this case TRUE.


Request for reconsideration by :

I intend to request reconsideration with 2 support.  "implicitly caused
it to explicitly" is as much doublespeak nonsense as "war means peace".


Judge ais523's Arguments:

First, some context: CFJ 2092 found that it was impossible to cause an
entity to become a player if it would end up in a situation where its
rule 101(vi) rights were violated. It's not too much of a stretch to
conclude that the same thing applies for creating an entity in a
registered state, and for other clauses of rule 101. So the question
collapses to whether the Slave Golem's rule 101 rights would be violated
upon its creation.

I conclude that rule 101(vii) implies that there is a must be a
mechanism for a Slave Golem to deregister, which I don't think anyone
seriously disputes (it can deregister via its owner's announcement,
which would destroy it but which is far from impossible). Rule 101(v)
implies that there must be a mechanism for a Slave Golem to make posts,
but this is also possible via its owner's announcement; and Rule 101(ii)
follows similar lines. Rule 101(i) is almost tautologously satisfied.
Rules 101(ii) and (iv) seem to be irrelevant to this CFJ. Rule 101(iii)
is the sticking point; it implies that it's possible for a Slave Golem
to refuse to become party to any given binding agreement, and implicitly
does so unless it explicitly does not. Although the rules have been
considered a binding agreement under certain past rulesets, they haven't
been under other past rulesets, and that raises the issue of whether
they are right now. Rule 101(iv) implies that they aren't, by listing
amendments to agreements together with rule changes; this would be
redundant if the rules were themselves an agreement for the purposes of
rule 101. This is not in itself binding evidence, though. CFJ 3144 found
that it was possible to be a player without agreeing to Agora; this is
arguably not quite the same thing as agreeing to its /ruleset/, but it's
pretty close.

I judge CFJ 3169 TRUE, considering that the Prisoner has not agreed to
Agora's rules in the sense of an agreement, and is not part of such an
agreement. (It's still bound by the rules, due to its nature as an
Agoran legal construct; but it hasn't agreed to the rules any more than
natural persons have agreed to the laws of physics. In each case, the
relevant person is physically incapable of violating the Agoran rules /
the laws of physics respectively, but that does not make them binding


Gratuitous Evidence by omd:

"implicitly caused it to
explicitly" has been game custom since CFJ 2101.  (Although, as
usually happens when I read my past judgements, the writing comes off
as rubbish, I stand by my last few paragraphs.)