Exactly. Wouldn't then withdrawing need to have something like, "something something, you can withdraw by specifying a ballot, and then the specified ballot is withdrawn"? Or why is arbitrary choice allowed there and not in making proposal text or something? (which seems to need explicit "yes, you can specify it" in order for us to be able to actually specify it.)
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be >> arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just >> that a text is there. >> >> > It's not about whether it's arbitrary, it's about whether we're empowered > to specify that thing and have it have an effect. The rules governing > proposals cover this: > > 2350: "A player <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> CAN > <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> create a proposal > <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2350> by announcement, *specifying > its text* and optionally specifying any of the following attributes:" > > 106: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal > <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2350> that takes effect CAN > <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> and does, as part of its > effect, *apply the changes that it specifies.*" > > You claim you can create a Murphy Trust Token and it has an effect. My > argument is that, from a legal perspective, it's not a Trust Token issued > by Murphy because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to specify > that and have it affect the gamestate. > > I submit the above as gratuitous arguments. > > > >> ...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No >> Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but >> defending a position: >> https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png >> >> (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.) >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a >>> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around >>> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a >>> ballot". >>> >>> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing. >>> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"? >>> >>> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an >>> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I >>> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an >>> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An >>> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! - >>> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace"). >>> >>> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though. >>> >>> >>> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and >>> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how >>> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: >>>> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this >>>> method, >>>> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such >>>> that >>>> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had >>>> created/granted >>>> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token", >>>> which >>>> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by >>>> virtue >>>> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, >>>> you >>>> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and >>>> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token"). >>>> >>>> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing >>>> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the >>>> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property >>>> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face. >>>> >>>> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be >>>> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the >>>> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for >>>> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal >>>> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to >>>> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes). >>>> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and >>>> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and >>>> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the >>>> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who >>>> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the >>>> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when >>>> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get >>>> started understanding anything. >>>> >>>> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the >>>> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work). >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ais523 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
