The CFJ answer must be no, because otherwise Agora would cease to exist and become ossified. If all actions are regulated, then they CAN be performed only in the manner described by the rules. The rules do not describe how to send or receive an email, etc. So if the CFJ is TRUE, then it would be INEFFECTIVE to issue a judgement of TRUE (because the method of sending the email issuing judgement would be regulated and there is no rule addressing that), and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to change the rules, making agora ossified.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM D Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh wait. I spoke too soon, without understanding the upshot of your > pledge. This is a hilarious and awesome pledge/CFJ. Very cool! > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:49 PM D Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hmm. I think the CFJ is trivially false. “Perform” is not defined, so we >> give it its ordinary meaning. Speaking for myself, I perform (in the sense >> of “do”) a great many unregulated actions on a daily basis (e.g., waking >> up, getting dressed, eating meals, reading books, talking to people other >> than through public fora, etc.). >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> > From: Cuddle Beam <[email protected]> >> > Date: October 1, 2018 at 1:13:37 PM EDT >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes a demiruge of a sort >> > Reply-To: [email protected] >> > >> > I pledge the following: I pledge to be the recordkeepor of absolutely >> > everything. >> > >> > I then CFJ the following: Non-regulated actions cannot be performed. >> > >> > Grat. Arguments for that CFJ: >> > - From R2125: (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify >> > information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. >> > - Via that pledge up there, I am required to be the recordkeepor of >> > absolutely everything (which would include all actions). >> > - Therefore, all actions are regulated, so performing a non-regulated >> > action is impossible. >> > - Note that: "The recordkeepor of a class of assets" is defined, but not >> > simply a "recordkeepor". Defining what the King of Spain is doesn't >> define >> > what Kings are. I assume that "recordkeepor" means simply "someone who >> > keeps a record of something", anyways. >> > >> > This could probably be done "better" with a contract because it's a >> > stronger "require-ing" than a Pledge, and it could possibly help with >> that >> > backing document thing, but yeah. Let's give this a shot. >> >
