Index ← 3736 CFJ 3737 3738 → text
===============================  CFJ 3737  ===============================

      If the contract in evidence were to come into force, breathing
      would be a regulated action.

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

Caller:                        Jason Cobb

Judge:                         Trigon
Judgement:                     FALSE

Judge:                         D. Margaux
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Jason Cobb:                             15 Jun 2019 03:34:49
Assigned to Trigon:                               15 Jun 2019 23:15:32
Judged FALSE by Trigon:                           16 Jun 2019 20:45:47
Motion filed for Trigon to reconsider:            17 Jun 2019 03:45:57
Trigon recuses emself:                            18 Jun 2019 00:43:49
Assigned to D. Margaux:                           18 Jun 2019 07:48:39
Judged FALSE by D. Margaux:                       21 Jun 2019 13:53:33

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

Caller's Arguments:

I argue that, if the contract were to come into force, then the Rules
would "limit" the performance of breathing, namely that parties to the
contract would be prohibited from breathing. This limiting would apply
due to the excerpt from Rule 1742, which requires that parties to the
contract act in accordance with it. In this case, requiring the parties
to act in accordance with the contract has the same effect as
prohibiting breathing. Prohibition of an action is a form of limiting
its performance. This would cause breathing to fall under the definition
of being regulated under Rule 2125. I thus argue that this CFJ should be
judged TRUE. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caller's Evidence:

Contract:

{

All parties to this contract SHALL NOT breathe.

}

(I explicitly do NOT consent to this contract.)


Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions"):

      An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
      permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
      the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
      of its effect, modify information for which some player is
      required to be a recordkeepor.


Excerpt from Rule 1742 ("Contracts"):

      Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
      accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
      by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
      between the contract and the rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Judge's Arguments by Trigon:

When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical
contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the
rule. Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I judge this CFJ
FALSE. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:47 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
> interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
> that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
> breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
>
>  > Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to
> breate but to do so would violate the rule.
[..]
> {
>
>        A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
>        Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
>        for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
>        interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
> }

It doesn't say cannot, but SHALL NOT.  [Yes, this is very silly.]

I point my finger at Trigon for interpreting the Rules so as to
proscribe unregulated actions.

See CFJ 3403:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recusal Arguments by Trigon:

I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL
way to resolve this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous arguments by G.

I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish breach-of-contract.  The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
breathing.

In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
      Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
      accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
      by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
      between the contract and the rules.

So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing, while the
rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for violating
R1742.  That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for something
unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished
for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this clause -
it's your fault for signing up."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge D. Margaux's Arguments:

Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be
entered in this CFJ.[1] I was subsequently assigned to judge it.

Judge Trigon believed that no LEGAL judgement could be assigned to this
case for reasons explained in an email chain reproduced in a footnote
here.[2] Judge Trigon's recusal was premised on eir belief that an
action does not necessarily become regulated when a contract states that
it "SHALL NOT" be performed.

After much consideration, I disagree with that conclusion, and instead
agree with contrary arguements offered by R. Lee and others. In
particular, an action is regulated if its "performance" is "limited" by
Rule. A "limitation" on "performance" does not necessarily mean a
limitation on the *possibility* of performance of the action. Instead,
it can also refer to a limitation on the LEGALLY of the performance of
the action.

In this CFJ, a hypothetical contract would forbids parties from
breathing, and the rules would prohibit a party from violating that
contract. The rules would therefore forbid a party to the contract from
breathing (but not anyone else). The contract at issue, and the rules
that create contracts generally, have limited the LEGAL performance of
breathing when done by a party to the hypothetical contract. As a
result, the act of breathing would be regulated when taken by a party to
the contract.

That said, the contract cannot affect the LEGALITY or POSSIBILITY of an
action taken by a non-party. As a result, the contract would not limit
breathing by non-parties.  Breathing by other people generally would not
be limited in any way, only breathing by parties to the contract.
Therefore it is FALSE that breathing generally would be regulated; only
breathing by certain people.

FALSE

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