Gaelan wrote:

I CFJ: {
If Cuddlebeam does not win the game in the next 90 days, there exists a 
combination of actions by players that would allow a player to levy the Cold 
Hand of Justice on twg for violation of the pledge below, without changing the 
rules or ratifying a document.
}

Arguments: {
2450/7 reads, in part: {
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from 
performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge within the pledge's time 
window is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge 
explicitly states otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the 
pledge explicitly states otherwise. A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its 
time window.
}

I’m not sure if the quoted pledge “explicitly” states that its time window is 
90 days. It certainly discusses a 90-day time window, but I’m not sure if that 
qualifies as “explicitly” stating that the pledge itself has a time window of 
90 days.

If the time window is 60 days, there’s no way to violate the pledge within its 
time window, and this is FALSE.

If the time window is 90 days, it still might not work. When was the pledge 
violated? There’s an argument to be made that the violation occurs at the moment the 
90-day window expires. If so, would that count as "breaking the pledge within 
the pledge's time window”?
}

Gaelan

On Feb 29, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business 
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

I cause myself to become CuddleBeam's Active Supermaster by pledging the
following:

I Pledge that I will cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora within 90 days. The
"N" of this Pledge, for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking
is a googleplex.

-twg

Gratuitous:

* "I Pledge that I will <action> within <duration>" is plenty explicit,
even if it doesn't literally use the words "time window". If it quacks
like a duck...

* I would indeed argue that the violation occurs at the end of the time
window, and that the interests of the game are better served by
interpreting that as being effective as the rule was surely intended.

Reply via email to