Crap. I CAN FEEL SO CLOSE.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2018 19:54, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure this destruction fails since it does not comply with the
> standards of destruction described within the contract. Therefore, I think
> this case should be judged DISMISS.
>
> 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