Re: [s-d] [s-b] Alelaelaelalealealealelaelaou

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Charles wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/14, Ed Murphy emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>> I submit the following consultation.
>>>
>>> Question:  Does a human external force who sends a message to a
>>> B Nomic forum necessarily join SCAM (Contract) by doing so?
>>>
>>> Reasoning:  SCAM (Contract) says that a human external force /may/
>>> join it by sending a message to a B Nomic forum, not that e /does/
>>> join it by doing so.
>>>
>>> Unbeliever:  Charles, for obvious reasons.
>>
>>
>> Regarding the Supplicant's argument: This argument goes against B Nomic
>> precedent . I submit the following example for the Priest: " A Potential
>> Sockholder that holds at least one XXX sock may become a member of this
>> contract by announcement". Once that announcement is made, it triggers the
>> contract condition causing the Potential Sockholder to become a member.
>
> Such an announcement would presumably include a clear indication of
> intent to join.
>
>> Once
>> a message is sent to a mailing list, it triggers the clause in SCAM
>> (Contract) causing the entity to become a member of that contract. The usage
>> of the word "may" refers to the fact that the joining is a voluntary act
>> (since, by 4E70, I cannot compel anyone to join my contract). I didn't make
>> you submit things to the mailing list, you did that on your own. Further,
>> since you submitted this consultation, you must have been aware of my
>> contract at the time you did so and you STILL sent mail to the list. If, on
>> the other hand, someone sends mail to the list before being aware of the
>> contract, I concede that they might not be bound to it. (However, they would
>> have to inform me of that by a private message rather than by sending mail
>> to the list)
>
> SCAM effectively defines sending a message to a B forum as synonymous
> with consenting to SCAM.  However, as a non-party to SCAM, I am not
> bound by that definition.  I didn't explicitly reject it either, but
> the high penalty for avoiding that action (being practically unable
> to participate in the game) argues against inferring implicit
> acceptance.

This. The definition of consent found in SCAM is, by nature of being
in the contract, binding on SCAM members; within the rules (which bind
the rest of us) consent means what it is generally taken to mean -
that is, *explicit* consent. Furthermore, players can be obligated to
send messages. But per rule 70, people may not become bound by a
contract except voluntarily, so it cannot be the case that such
obligatory messages count as consent to join SCAM.

As for an Agoran precedent allowing implicit acceptance - this is B.
Agora's customs have no bearing here.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss