I object to that intent :P

Another try:

I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
Agora, with the following text:

-------
~~~~Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.~~~~

"This sentence is false."
The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's
Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the truth-value
of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
"false").
-------

I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!

I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:

> CFJ 3620:
>
> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> > -------
> > "This sentence is false."
> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> > false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but I
> > do not owe any shinies to any person.
> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > -------
>
> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> > CuddleBeam at least one shiny.
>
> Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from actions
> that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
> ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to act.
> So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
> obligation is not barred.
>
> There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract should
> be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
> sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with rules, we
> are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of the
> parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity about
> a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation of the
> parties.
>
> Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer shinies.
> If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to effect a
> transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
> discharged.
>
> Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable whether
> or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution for the
> paradox.
>
> I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is not
> about the legality or possibility of a game action, and thereby fails to
> meet the requirements for a win by paradox.
>
> CFJ 3621:
>
> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
> > -------
> > "This sentence is false."
> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
> false,
> > I owe no shinies to Agora.
> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to Nichdel but I do
> > not owe any shinies to any person.
> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
> and
> > Nichdel what I owe them within a week of owing.
> > -------
>
> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
> > Nichdel at least one shiny.
>
> This one is IRRELEVANT; it's trivially determined by the previous case.
>
> Proposal: Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix (AI=2.4)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing "If whether an
> action is permitted or forbidden by a contract" with "If whether an action
> is permitted, forbidden, required, or made optional by a contract".
> }}}
>
> I intend, without objection, to pend this proposal.
>
> -Alexis
>

Reply via email to