Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
On Thursday, May 7, 2020 8:11:21 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > 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" > > Gratuitous: > > R. Lee emself admits that the first CFJ is basically identical to CFJ > 3828. I believe this means it is IRRELEVANT because the case "can be > trivially determined from the outcome of another [...] judicial case > that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT". > > -- > Jason Cobb Gratuitous: Some players have argued that the original CFJ is not about actions, this one unambiguously is. Since the game impact of the CFJ rulings would be different, I don't think it can be trivially determined, nor is it IRRELEVANT. Additionally, someone has now attempted to perform the described action and this CFJ is now directly relevant to gamestate. Another reason to not rule IRRELEVANT. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
Well, let's test this. I become a party to the contract. For each coin currently in R. Lee's possession (I believe 30, but there isn't an up-to-date Treasuror's report), I transfer it to myself, then for each coin, if the previous action has succeeded, I transfer it to G. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:26 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business 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 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 enactment, and then repealed itself.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." > > > By the way, any party to this contract can transfer away all of your > coins, so you might want to destroy it. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > 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" Gratuitous: R. Lee emself admits that the first CFJ is basically identical to CFJ 3828. I believe this means it is IRRELEVANT because the case "can be trivially determined from the outcome of another [...] judicial case that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT". -- Jason Cobb
