Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 21:06, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/8/20 4:51 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > 1 seems unconvincing. The NAX now requires simple majority for
> > amendments (meaning not all members need to publicly consent to the next
> > change), and I think everyone would accept that that mechanism works
> > because all members consented to the mechanism.
> >
>
> Sure. Only one of the conditions for consent in Rule 2519 has to be met.
> A contract with an explicit amendment mechanism likely falls under
> condition 2 or condition 4, but I don't think it falls under condition 1.
>
> My reading of condition 1 is that the person had to explicitly consent
> to that specific change, but a failure to do that doesn't necessarily
> preclude the other conditions from saying e consented.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

There are convincing arguments in this thread on my paradox attempt
won't work. Should I withdraw the CFJ, or just leave it open since the
judge has plenty of gratuitous argument they can cite? (They could
probably just cite Jason's argument and be done with it.)

I didn't have a lot of hope for this, but couldn't resist.

I'll add one more argument against a PARADOXICAL finding:

The precedent in CFJ 3768 makes me suspect any kind of attempt to
build a paradox only on a contract is bound to fail. If we pretend
grok's, Jason's and ATMunn's arguments in this thread fail, then I
suspect it just turns out Cuddle Beam's by announcement action was not
"unambiguously and clearly" specified, which would make this FALSE.
(So, kind of similar to Jason's point about consent.)

My summary of the other arguments presented

* grok points out the spell is only described as removing "scams", not
*all scams*.

* Jason argues Cuddle Beam probably didn't consent to eir contract
being changed.

* ATMunn points out "scam" isn't defined by the rules (though I wonder
if that means we need to figure out what "scam" means to Agorans,
since the contract doesn't explicitly define the term)

- Falsifian

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 4:51 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> 1 seems unconvincing. The NAX now requires simple majority for 
> amendments (meaning not all members need to publicly consent to the next 
> change), and I think everyone would accept that that mechanism works 
> because all members consented to the mechanism.
>

Sure. Only one of the conditions for consent in Rule 2519 has to be met.
A contract with an explicit amendment mechanism likely falls under
condition 2 or condition 4, but I don't think it falls under condition 1.

My reading of condition 1 is that the person had to explicitly consent
to that specific change, but a failure to do that doesn't necessarily
preclude the other conditions from saying e consented.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 2:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Rule 1742 reads: "A contract may be modified, including by changing the
> set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties."
>
> I don't believe CuddleBeam has consented to the amendment of this contract:
>
> 1. E has not publicly stated that e consented to its amendment at all
>
> 2. E is not party to a contract that states e consents to it.
>
> 3. E has created no promises.
>
> 4. It is likely that, even if the contract is a scam, CuddleBeam would
> prefer it to remain that way - even if e wanted it to be amended, it is
> certainly not "reasonably clear from context" that e wanted it to be.
>
> I argue for FALSE: e has not consented to the modification of the
> contract, so it has not been modified.

(I'm still setting thunderbird up so bear with any irregularities)

I find 4 the most convincing here. It's ambiguous whether the Scam 
Banishing Ritual can amend the contract, and it doesn't seem like CB 
intended it to. If the item was explicitly defined as being able to 
amend the contract, then I think it would do so without CB saying e 
directly consents to that because e would have consented to the contract 
that created the mechanism.

1 seems unconvincing. The NAX now requires simple majority for 
amendments (meaning not all members need to publicly consent to the next 
change), and I think everyone would accept that that mechanism works 
because all members consented to the mechanism.

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

Gratuitous: the term "scam" isn't defined anywhere in the rules, nor in 
this contract. CuddleBeam can claim eir contract has fewer scams all e 
wants, but it won't change the text of the contract. FALSE, or possibly 
IRRELEVANT.


On 6/8/2020 2:23 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 17:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
 wrote:

Alright, I Fulfill the Spell! Here we go!

 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈

AGORA SPIRIT OF THE GAME, I CALL UPON THEE, LISTEN TO ME EXCLAIM!!

 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈

SCAMS BEGONE FROM THIS PLACE, I BANISH THEE TO THE DARK NETHER FROM THE
WHICH YOU CAME!!

 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈

SCAMS BE GONE AND NEVER COME BACK, BURN FOREVER, DEPART WITH THIS FLAME!


WOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOO - BOOOSHA!




The ritual has been completed.
The scams have been banished from THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE.

But, be careful, they may return. (In which case I recommend you buy more
banishment rituals).

Thank you for your patronage!



CFJ: In the message quoted above, Cuddle Beam altered the part of eir
MYSTICAL MENAGERIE contract describing "Scam Banishment Ritual" (where
for this purpose, deleting that section or destroying the whole contract
count as altering that part).


Arguments:

It is plain for anyone to see that the Scam Banishment Ritual is a scam.
Here I've quoted relevant parts of the contract:


Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
Product in their ownership.


...


Spells are destructible assets that can be owned by any Player. Cuddlebeam
can Fulfill a Spell by announcement along mystical actions. Once Fulfilled,
the Spell is destroyed and its mystical effects will then benefit its owner
as described. The following are the Spells, their emoji representation,
their price in coins, and their mystical abilities.

龍 Scam Banishment Ritual [30 Coins]
A powerful rite which, when applied, it will mystically remove scams
present in a certain document by purifying it of evil, serving as an extra
safeguard against any possible rule-lawyering and legal debauchery. Can be
purchased and applied multiple times to further strengthen its purifying
effect.


A few minutes ago, Cuddle Beam Fulfilled the Spell that I bought by annoucement:


Alright, I Fulfill the Spell! Here we go!


As the only party to the MYSTICAL MENAGERIE contract, Cuddle Beam has
the ability to modify the contract. Therefore, e removed the scam when e
fulfilled the spell. So it should be TRUE.

But wait! If it worked, then it wasn't a scam after all! So, eir action
should not have affected it. So it should be FALSE.

But if it didn't do anything, we're back where we started: it's a scam
that doesn't actually have the power to purge all scams. So, again,
TRUE.

In conclusion, this should be judged PARADOXICAL.


- Falsifian