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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Contrast the example "Any player may join this contract by insulting
a player".  This action is equally avoidable, but the penalty for
avoiding it is much lower, so the case for inferring implicit acceptance
is stronger (though still arguable).  This came up in Agora in 2001:
  http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1290
and the judgement found in favor of implicit acceptance.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss