Simple gratuitous arguments:

Twitter (specifically Cuddlebeam's) is not, and has never been, a public forum. I don't see how a contract could make it act as so.


On 2/13/2018 10:11 PM, Cuddle Beam 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