You withdrew the proposal and contract though right? Wouldn't it be false then
since you can't pend a proposal that doesn't exist? Or would the CFJ be judged
from when you called it?
On 11/26/2017 1:12 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
I spend a shiny to create the following contract, entitled "No
Self-Indulgence":
{{{
Alexis SHALL NOT pend any proposal e authored.
Alexis CAN revoke this contract by announcement.
}}}
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Self-Indulgence AI=3
{{{
The contract "No Self-Indulgence" is destroyed.
If, immediately after this proposal's submission, it was LEGAL for Alexis
to pend it, repeal Rule 101.
}}}
I AP-CFJ:
{{{
It is LEGAL for me to pend the proposal "Self-Indulgence".
}}}
Arguments:
Per Rule 2525, pending a proposal whose sole effect is to destroy a
contract a protected action, and therefore cannot be forbidden by a
contract. Thus, the restriction on pending proposals in "No
Self-Indulgence" does not apply to any proposal whose sole effect is to
destroy a contract.
If it is LEGAL for me to pend Self-Indulgence, then it will repeal Rule
101. In this case, its effect is not solely limited to destroying a
contract (or any of the other effects that would cause its pending to be
protected by Rule 2525). Thus, pending it is unprotected and No
Self-Indulgence is free to restrict it. So it must actually be ILLEGAL.
If it is ILLEGAL for me to pend Self-Indulgence, then it will not repeal
Rule 101. In this case, its effect is solely limited to destroying a
contract, and pending it is protected. Thus No Self-Indulgence cannot
impose on me an obligation not to pend it, so it must be LEGAL (Given that,
as is in fact the case, there is nothing else that would make it illegal).
I destroy No Self-Indulgence and withdraw Self-Indulgence.
