I favor this CFJ. While I am trying to block the scam, I'm not emotionally
invested enough in doing so that it would effect my ruling. In addition, my
economic CoI is not greater than any other participant in the economy (I
can always redo the DracoLotto under a new economy).
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:22 PM Ed Strange via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> CFJ: Any attempt to exile a player or claim a welcome package fails under
> omd's contract.
>
> Arguments: The provision omd cites is very very clearly a block to any
> "Change" in the CONTRACT'S text, rather than any change or action in the
> entire game state. This is clear and unambiguous, but the best interests of
> the game clearly are for contracts not to be able to block any type of
> action. To demonstrate this,
> I consent to and create the following contract:
> {
> R. Lee consents, assents to, wants to, and does automatically amend this
> contract
> by prepending the Secret Word, each time any of the following occur:
> -The rule called :"Welcome Package" is amended
> -Anyone votes FOR a proposal that would amend the rule "Welcome Package"
>
> If omd was wearing a hat at the time this contract was created, then the
> Secret
> Word is "Hello". Otherwise, it is "Goodbye".
>
> }
>
> I think this contract very clearly makes the "best interests of the game"
> point.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:45 PM omd via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, here goes nothing.
> >
> > I consent to and create the following contract:
> > {
> > omd consents, assents to, wants to, and does automatically amend this
> > contract
> > by prepending the Secret Word, each time any of the following occur:
> >
> > - A contract other than this one is created or amended.
> > - Any player is exiled.
> > - Any player receives a Welcome Package.
> >
> > If omd was wearing a hat at the time this contract was created, then the
> > Secret
> > Word is "Hello". Otherwise, it is "Goodbye".
> >
> > [This is an attempt to exploit the following provision:
> >
> > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause
> > the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
> > unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
> >
> > It's based on a discussion on Discord which seemed to conclude that
> > consent is
> > not just a condition for modifying contracts but the mechanism for it,
> > under
> > the relevant clause of Rule 1742:
> >
> >
> > A contract may be modified,
> > including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all
> > existing parties.
> >
> > Note that Rule 1742 does not provide any other mechanism, so if consent
> is
> > not
> > a mechanism, amending and terminating contracts is probably impossible by
> > Rule
> > 2125.
> >
> > If consent is a mechanism, Rule 2519 item 2 (and to some extent item 4)
> > suggests that contracts can trigger it automatically.
> >
> > Whether this actually succeeds at blocking actions depends, I suppose, on
> > how
> > you define "change", "cause", and "unambiguously".]
> > }
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
