Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2702 =================== CFJ 2702 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== On or about Sept 20, 2009 22:51 (UTC) ais523 terminated Contract B. ======================================================================== Caller: BobTHJ Barred: ais523 Judge: coppro Judgement: TRUE ======================================================================== History: Called by BobTHJ: 21 Sep 2009 17:51:14 GMT Assigned to coppro: 23 Sep 2009 22:33:17 GMT Judged TRUE by coppro: 23 Sep 2009 22:55:20 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 17:51, comex wrote: > Fails, it imposes on me the obligation of not awarding points other than at > my discretion (such as if I were mousetrapped, and someone acted on my > behalf to award points). > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 20, 2009, at 6:51 PM, ais523 wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:26 -0400, comex wrote: >>> >>> I amend Contract B to read: >>> { >>> This is a public contract and a pledge. comex CAN make arbitrary >>> Contract Changes to this contract by announcement. >>> >>> If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir >>> discretion, so long as the total number of points awarded or revoked >>> on any axis do not exceed this contract's threshold index. >>> } >> >> I hereby terminate contract B as obsolete, because it does not impose >> any obligations. >> ======================================================================== Judge coppro's Arguments: I judge VERY FUNNY. Err... TRUE, based on the following: 1) Acting on behalf of someone is equivalent to sending a message on their behalf, thus equivalent to acting in their discretion. 2) R2125 does not apply to Contract B. 3) It is impossible for comex to act in a manner other than at his own discretion (see 1)) ========================================================================