On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 5:28 PM Rebecca wrote:
> I create a contract with the following text
>
> "Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this
> contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to trasnfer one coin away from em to
> emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule titled
> "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its enactment,
> and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, the current
> position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of this
> contract."
>
> I call the following CFJ (I bar trigon)
> "It is a possible game action for a player to use the contract contained
> in this message to act on R. Lee's behalf to transfer a coin".
> I also call the following (unofficially linked) CFJ barring trigon.
> "If the statement in the first CFJ contained in this message is judged
> PARADOXICAL, and that judgement stands for seven days, R. Lee may win the
> game by announcement"
>
> This CFJ is basically identical to the CFJ judged paradoxical by G. except
> the statement is slightly different (explicitly talking about the
> possibility of a game action).
>
> To understand this CFJ, one need only look at the arguments, evidence and
> judgement found here:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3828 and the arguments
> found in this thread:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057403.html
>
> I argue that the contract creates a paradox identical to the one in 3828
> because it refers to the state of the game after the enactment of "A coin
> award", not the current state of the game (where the coin resides in the
> Lost and Found Department). Because the ability to transfer an asset is at
> issue, the CFJ isn't IRRELEVANT to the current game state. And the first
> CFJ called here obviously refers to "the possibility of a game action" for
> reasons that are too obvious to require stating.
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
I terminate the above contract and retract both CFJs, due to a typo (you
can terminate a contract with the consent of all parties). And then once
again I
I create a contract with the following text
"Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this
contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin away from R. Lee
to emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule
titled "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its
enactment, and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, the
current position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of this
contract."
I call the following CFJ (I bar trigon)
"It is a possible game action for a player to use the contract contained in
this message to act on R. Lee's behalf to transfer a coin".
I also call the following (unofficially linked) CFJ barring trigon.
"If the statement in the first CFJ contained in this message is judged
PARADOXICAL, and that judgement stands for seven days, R. Lee may win the
game by announcement"
This CFJ is basically identical to the CFJ judged paradoxical by G. except
the statement is slightly different (explicitly talking about the
possibility of a game action).
To understand this CFJ, one need only look at the arguments, evidence and
judgement found here:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3828 and the arguments
found in this thread:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057403.html
I argue that the contract creates a paradox identical to the one in 3828
because it refers to the state of the game after the enactment of "A coin
award", not the current state of the game (where the coin resides in the
Lost and Found Department). Because the ability to transfer an asset is at
issue, the CFJ isn't IRRELEVANT to the current game state. And the first
CFJ called here obviously refers to "the possibility of a game action" for
reasons that are too obvious to require stating.
--
>From R. Lee
