Index ← 3539 CFJ 3540 3541 → text
==============================  CFJ 3540  ==============================

      The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.

========================================================================

Caller:                       G.                       

Judge:                        Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                    TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                                    18 Jul 2017
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:     18 Jul 2017               
Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  20 Jul 2017

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?

Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?

I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
to say they can't make pledges).

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 12:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>                               0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1

========================================================================

Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus's Arguments:

I find CFJ 3540 to be TRUE because the message clearly communicates what
is being pledged to a public forum. However, I find that this pledge is
ineffective and can not be broken because there is no way to determine
which document with the specified hash and character constraint e is
referencing. If e were to redo this pledge with reference to a specific
document identified more specifically in an unambiguous way or to every
document fulfilling such a description, it would be an effective pledge.
As to the question of privately communicated pledges raised in
discussion, I find that those would also be effective if there were some
means by which it could be legally verified that the message is that
which the pledge was made on. This could be done via a combination of
hashing functions and private communication or via some of smart
contracts, blockchains, or document depositories.

========================================================================