This is an informal description/FAQ of Agoran common law (CFJ history) as it impacts current play. These are not legally binding on judges but provide guidance for how past decisions have gone.
Prior to the adoption of P8925, performing a by-announcement action conditionally was not explicitly mentioned in the Rules. It was governed by this clause in Rule 478/40 (Fora):
Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by announcement", that person performs that action by, in a single public message, specifying the action and setting forth intent to perform that action by sending that message, doing both clearly and unambiguously.
Under the old common law standard, a condition ("If X is true, I do Y") was considered to set forth intent to perform the action if true and not otherwise, if and only if the condition specified is determinable, with reasonable effort by a "typical" Agoran, at the time the action is attempted. In particular, attempts at paradox ("If this sentence is false, I do Y") were just considered unclear and do nothing, rather than actually creating a paradox.
P8925 attempted to codify this standard in R2518/1:
A communication purporting to express conditional intent to perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes the communication.
It is important to note the phrasing of "unclear and ambiguous unless, at a minimum". This implies both that the conditional should be presumed to be invalid unless the listed requirements can be affirmatively shown to be meant, and that it does not explicitly preclude other standards from being applied.
added by G. 2022-06-15
updated by Janet 2023-05-27
Formerly: Dependent actions
Intents to perform tabled actions must meet the following requirements (R1728/46):
A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly, conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying the action, the method (including non-default parameter values), and, optionally, conditions.
The governing precedent for "conspicuously" and "without obfuscation" is CFJ3747 (written during a prior, but similar, wording of the relevant rules).
CFJ3747 defines something as conspicuous if "a reasonable player would be able to tell after glancing at a message that it contains the dependent action" (para. 3 of the judgement). See the judgement for further details.
CFJ3747 defines "without obfuscation" using a two part test:
- "[A] reasonable Agoran reading the message must, at a glance, be able to understand the gist of the dependent action being announced".
- The details of the action must be "easy to understand" (with a guideline of 30-60 seconds maximum).
CFJ3747 does not take an opinion on what it means for intents to be "clear", asserting that remaining precedent is clear.
CFJ3747 does not take an opinon on "explicitly", as that language did not exist at the time.
added by Janet 2023-02-02
Consent is governed by Rule 2519/2:
A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if, at the time the action took place: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement; 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously indicates eir consent; 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place.
In CFJ4013, Judge G. found that:
- Silence never implies consent.
- Uncertainty in evidence of consent implies that consent has not been given.
- R2519 clause #1 does not allow for condiitonals.
- R2519 clause #4 does allow for "reasonably clear" conditionals.
- R2519 clause #4 includes the entire context of the purported consent (including, at least, the entire message)
Under a previous iteration of the consent rule (R2519/0), CFJ3583 also found that consent cannot be inferred from silence. CFJ3583 further found that consent must be inferred from a specific "instant of consent" that a reasonable Agoran would believe establishes consent. CFJ3583 explicitly excludes the possibility of a pattern of behavior establishing consent after the fact (and this requirement is now evident in Rule 2519/2, as consent is evaluated "at the time the action took place").
Though CFJ3583 was decided under a previous rule, the core elements of Rule 2519 that were used to determine it remain the same:
Rule 2519/0 (Power=3) Consent
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.
CFJ3583 was further decided under the following clauses in R869/40, which remain in R869/51 today:
- "The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful consent."
- "The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express or reasonably implied consent."
Having not otherwise been explicitly overturned, CFJ3583 likely remains good law.
added by Janet 2023-05-27