(Arbitor is currently vacant.) I deputize as Arbitor to perform the following:
------*------- The CFJ summoned below by Nichdel is CFJ 3620 and the one summoned by Cuddlebeam is CFJ 3621. I assign these both to Alexis. (They're both nearly identical and they mentioned favoring the case) ------*------- I then resign Arbitor. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I should put one myself up too actually lol: > > 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. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I T B E G I N S. >> I'm excited to see the outcome! >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> TTttPF >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Well it seems viable to me sooooo I'll give it a shot I guess lol. >>> >> (Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). >>> Here are >>> >> the proto-actions: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> >> If I owe a positive amount of shinies, I cannot make any transfer of >>> >> shinies until I fulfill paying the amount owed. // <--- Mainly so >>> that it >>> >> can't be shot down as "irrelevant", because shinies are a game >>> mechanic. >>> >> >>> > >>> > I'm not caught up on recent discussions but my reading of 2520 makes >>> me >>> > wonder if a contract can prohibit action. That said, I think this >>> works: >>> > >>> > >>> > 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. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> ------- >>> >> >>> >> I raise a CFJ on the following: I owe Agora an amount of shinies due >>> to >>> >> the >>> >> contract above. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Maybe this is a dumb question but, wouldn't it be possible to just >>> >> > "program" yourself some kind of paradox into a contract, for >>> example, >>> >> some >>> >> > variant of the Paradox of the Court >>> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court where I have to >>> pay >>> >> > someone or not, then request in a CFJ to know if I have to pay them >>> or >>> >> not? >>> >> > >>> >> > Then, have that CFJ gain a verdict of "Paradox" (and not because of >>> the >>> >> > case itself, but because of the contract you've engineered to make >>> the >>> >> CFJ >>> >> > read from it that value of "Paradox", to avoid "PARADOXICAL is not >>> >> > appropriate if (...) the undecidability arises from the case itself >>> or >>> >> in >>> >> > reference to it.") >>> >> > >>> >> > Then claim a win via the Paradox rule. >>> >> > >>> >> > Sounds viable? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
