Someone should track that...

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Do you even have enough shinies for all these contracts?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:21, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it:
> > http://archive.is/FQpip
> >
> > I need to go sleep, godspeed to me lol.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/Cuddlebeam/status/963611395257503744
> > >
> > > I CFJ with shinies the following: That destruction (the twitter one
> > linked
> > > above) was legal.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Another try:
> > >>
> > >> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2) by paying 1 shiny to
> > >> Agora, with the following text:
> > >>
> > >> -------
> > >> ~~~~Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2.~~~~
> > >>
> > >> "This sentence is false."
> > >> The way this contract is destroyed is by making a post in Cuddlebeam's
> > >> Twitter (@Cuddlebeam), with such a post 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").
> > >> -------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Just in case:
> > >>>
> > >>> I CFJ with a payment of shinies the following: That destruction I just
> > >>> did was possible.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:54 AM, 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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