=============================== CFJ 3706 ===============================
All Players are parties to the Rules as a contract.
Called by CuddleBeam: 09 Feb 2019 18:36:37
Assigned to G.: 10 Feb 2019 18:39:05
Judged TRUE by G.: 14 Feb 2019 00:12:39
I don't know how the retroactive nature of the Agora-contract works - if
everyone is now a party of the Agora-contract, ie. a player of Agora, or if
only people who have registered while the contract rule was in place - but
a few curious things that now could happen because of it regardless.
- Agora-contract can never fall below two players, because of R1742: "A
contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls
below two", and Anti-Ossification is Power 4. Amusingly, the whole consent
deal has less priority than Anti-Ossification, so even if you don't want to
stay as a player the rules will NON-CONSENSUALLY keep you as a player to
ensure it's survival.
- You can change the rules if everyone agrees to it, without needing a
proposal for it. R1742: "A contract may be modified, including by changing
the set of parties, by agreement between all existing parties."
- R1742: "Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
with that contract." - redundant but it would mean that breaking SHALLs,
will mean blots for two things, the direct SHALL you broke and this one.
- Assets are BOTH public and private now, lmao. R2166: "A rule defined
asset is public; one defined by a contract is private."
Judge G.'s Arguments:
- First and foremost, Agora is [an instance of] a game of Nomic (R101,
R1698). As this is specified in some of our highest-precedence rules,
anything that conflicts with Agora being a game would be overruled.
- An instance of game, by societal convention (i.e. social contract), is
an agreement of a set of persons (players, or parties) to abide by a
certain set of rules when interacting in contexts covered by those
rules. This agreement includes the rules text and a set of persons who
- Players of games, by societal convention, are “bound” to those rules –
in the sense that it’s considered rude to pick up your ball and go home
before the rules say the game is over. Furthermore, the agreement-
nature of the game (including polite ways to leave the agreement) is
explicitly contained in R869.
- The rules are governed by the rules. This is a tautology.
- Therefore the “binding agreement to abide by the rules, as governed by
the rules” is a consequence of Agora’s “game nature”. It is a single
entity; e.g. the assets of “Agora as game” and “Agora as agreement” are
the same (R1586).
- R1742 states that “Any group of two or more consenting persons (the
parties) may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that
it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
is known as a contract.” This simply applied the label “contract” to
this type of agreement.
- Therefore, the “contract” label applies to Agora.
- But importantly, since the agreement is a consequence of Agora’s
game-nature in addition to R869, Agora is not “just” a contract. If the
definition of the label in R1742 is repealed, Agora continues to exist
as a game (R1586).
- If the label is used to grant abilities or limitations to inheritors
of that label (e.g. “a contract CAN”), then those abilities or
limitations are also granted to Agora, but are (by agreement) subject to
the usual rules for precedence, power, etc.
- However, an explicit statement using the label (e.g. “All contracts
are destroyed”) would include “Agora is destroyed” as part of its
effects, to be applied to whatever power the statement is given (see CFJ
- So beware of blanket directives applied to Contracts at power-3.
- The current definition of Contract in R1742 was adopted on 01-Jul-18
(Proposal 8054). Prior to that, the definition for “Contract” was such
that it did not apply to Agora. The previous definition (R2520)
included “An entity can only become a contract through the appropriate
ruleset defined procedures” and the defined procedures never occurred
for Agora. So the power-3 clause in Proposal 8054 (“Destroy all
contracts.”) did not apply to Agora.
- Rules currently applying to contracts (as a label) thus have the
effect of applying those rules to Agora, subject to the relative
precedence of those rules.
- Now, before final judgement, some due diligence. If “contracts”
includes Agora, are any rules-references to contracts dangerous to
Agora? Here's the list:
1. “A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of
parties, by agreement between all existing parties.” (R1742) Yes, it
can – “without objection” is a rules agreed-to method of determining
unanimous consent. By agreeing to the rules, the parties have already
agreed that other methods, such as everyone saying “I agree”, don’t
work for Agora, due to power/precedence/etc. of this clause relative to
2. “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all parties.”
(R1742) Some hoops would have to be jumped through as part of the
agreement-to-terminate (e.g. repealing the protective rules) but again,
this is fine, putting it here does not override existing higher-power
3. “A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it
falls below two.” (R1742) This one is interesting, as it adds a stealth
protection – the second-to-last person in Agora may be prevented from
deregistering due to R1698. (that might not be the exact mechanism, but
R1698-effectsd would overrule any termination implied by R1742).
4. “A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
permitted by the contract's text:...” (R1742). Yup, if the rules
permit, the players can do those things. Which would be true if this
clause didn’t exist.
5. “Contracts have Mint Authority.” (R2166). So do rules, so this adds
6. “ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and
contracts.” (R2576). The lists includes Agora and contracts so changes
nothing. Same with the more specific asset limitations (e.g. coins).
7. The thing with allies and space battles isn’t an issue.
- Therefore, there is nothing in the current ruleset that fails to treat
Agora Right Good by applying the label of “Contract” to it as per R1742,
the only danger is being sure that future proposals or other instruments
that say “all Contracts are [X]” are proofed against harming the rules.
But given that all power-3 proposals have some danger of overruling
everything, that particular concern doesn't particularly keep me up at
- I find TRUE.