The thing is, it depends on where you use it.  If you put a "simple
contradiction" in actual Rules Text, you have to interpret it (which
is why voting is important!)  If you use it as a conditional action,
it just fails (ambiguous conditional not clear enough for a "by
announcement" action conditional).  But using it "in a contract"
may be a middle ground and where does that fall.  CFJ 3761 judgement
suggests it's based on how exactly the Rules text allows the contract
to interact with the rules, specific to each type of interaction
(e.g. different for contract currencies vs. contract act on behalfs
vs contract other things).

On 8/10/2019 5:10 AM, Rebecca wrote:
I tried to win this way once, I think precedent has something to say along
the lines of "the liar paradox is too simple and does not count"

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:00 PM Kerim Aydin <> wrote:

The below is CFJ 3768.  I assign it to Trigon.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:16 PM Jason Cobb <> wrote:

I CFJ: "A party to the contract in evidence CAN act on behalf of the
other party to transfer a coin.'




Consent of a second party:

Excerpt from Rule 1742/21 ("Contracts"):

     A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
     as permitted by the contract's text:

     * Act on behalf of another party to the contract.

     * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract.

     * By announcement, take liquid assets from the contract.




The contract exists because two parties (G. and I) have consented to it,
and neither has ceased being party to the contract.

The contract states that

     If "this statement is false" is a true statement, each party to this
     contract is permitted to, and CAN, once, and only once, act on
     behalf of the other party to transfer one (1) Coin to this contract.

This contract, subject to a conditional, permits a party to act on
behalf of another party to it. Thus, whether or not Rule 1742 states
that I CAN act on behalf of another party is directly dependent on the
conditional specified by the contract. However, this conditional is a
paradoxical statement (the liar paradox). Thus, whether the Rule states
that I CAN act on behalf depends on a paradoxical statement. The other
part of the requirements is fulfilled, as I have not acted-on-behalf of
G. pursuant to this contract before.

Considering the possible outcomes:

FALSE: To reach this outcome one would need to find that "this statement
is false" is false, which is not a valid assessment of that statement's
truthfulness (it is a paradox); FALSE is not appropriate.

TRUE: As above, but would need to find the statement true; TRUE is not

IRRELEVANT: Whether or not I can act on behalf of G. is absolutely
relevant because it is on the permissibility of an action that affects a
quantity that the Treasuror must keep track of; I make this further
relevant by actually attempting to perform this action later in the
message in which I submit this case. This is therefore relevant to the
game; IRRELEVANT is not appropriate.

INSUFFICIENT: I have (hopefully) given the judge everything that e needs
to issue a judgement; INSUFFICIENT is not appropriate.

DISMISS: I argue that PARADOXICAL is appropriate, so DISMISS is not

PARADOXICAL: "appropriate if the statement is logically undecidable as a
result of a paradox", I argue that this is in fact true, as the
statement depends on the truthfulness of the liar paradox; I argue that
PARADOXICAL is appropriate.


And to make this RELEVANT: If I CAN do so, I cause G. to transfer 1 coin
to the below contract.

Jason Cobb

On 8/3/19 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Sure I'll bite (but I'll leave the judging to someone else).

I consent to the below contract.

On 8/3/2019 1:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/3/19 4:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Yeah, when I set this up with you I thought it would be a long
about whether contract precedence should be forwards or backwards or
there were other general interpretation principles that could apply
(with a
good chance of a "nope - this is paradoxical" result).  The
importance of
the exact Rule link language ('specify') only occurred to me this


Alright. Looks like act-on-behalf only uses "permitted" (not
"specified"), and I would guess (read: hope) that a contract that
permits something based on a paradox is paradoxical.

Would you like to try again, with this contract (which I consent to)?


0. Only G. and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any
other person becomes party to this contract, e immediately ceases to
be a party, and, the rest of the contract notwithstanding, CANNOT
perform any actions permitted by this contract.

1. A party to this contract CAN cease being a contract by

2. If "this statement is false" is a true statement, each party to
this contract is permitted to, and CAN, once, and only once, act on
behalf of the other party to transfer one (1) Coin to this contract.

3. A party to this contract is permitted to, and CAN, take any liquid
assets from this contract by announcement.


Jason Cobb

Reply via email to