> It seems in the best interests of the game
THERE HE IS
THAT LITTLE GREMLIN CLAUSE IN R217
AGAIN IN THE CFJS
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:51 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > The below CFJ is 3843. I assign it to Murphy.
> >
> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3843
> >
> > === CFJ 3843
> ===
> >
> >The Bazinga is a destructible private asset.
> >
> >
> ==
> >
> > Caller:Aris
> > Barred:Cuddlebeam
> >
> > Judge: Murphy
> >
> >
> ==
> >
> > History:
> >
> > Called by Aris: 11 Jun 2020 19:51:32
> > Assigned to Murphy: [now]
> >
> >
> ==
> >
> > Caller's Evidence:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 Cuddlbeam wrote:
> >>
> >> I’m unsure how much power we have in “defining an entity” for the
> purposes
> >> of contract-defined Assets, but eh life is short, I’ll give it a shot.
> >> Also, this doesn’t violate DADA, rather, it aims to exploit it seeing
> how
> >> G. was punished for Dark Arts recently. It maybe even has support from
> AIAN
> >> but I have no idea. Anyways baby, let’s go.
> >>
> >>
> >> (About the Bazinga: it didn't exist as gamestate before this contract
> >> existed, right? With that specific name and all, which is a lot
> different
> >> from just the set alone, namelessly. So it exists by virtue of the
> >> contract. That's important for R2166.)
> >>
> >> I create the following contract called “Humble Agoran Moral Tripwire”:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The set consisting of Cuddlebeam’s Master Switch and Agora’s Ruleset is
> >> defined to be the Bazinga entity. And, of course, there is only one
> >> Bazinga.
> >>
> >> The Bazinga is a destructible asset that can only be owned by Cuddlebeam
> >> and is owned by Cuddlebeam.
> >>
> >> The Bazinga is destroyed whenever any event described in the Big Evil
> List
> >> happens.
> >>
> >> The Big Evil List is:
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >> Cuddlebeam’s Karma lowers
> >> -
> >>
> >> Cuddlebeam gains a Blot
> >> -
> >>
> >> Someone casts a vote of anything other than FOR, on any of
> Cuddlebeam’s
> >> Proposals that have their title in all capital letters.
> >> -
> >>
> >> Someone other than Cuddlebeam performs a scam
> >> -
> >>
> >> Someone other than Cuddlebeam uses the trick involving Rule 2617
> and/or
> >> Rule 1698 that this contract employs.
> >> -
> >>
> >> This Contract ceases to exist by means other than Cuddlebeam’s own
> >> Proposals.
> >> -
> >>
> >> This Contract is amended by means other than Cuddlebeam’s own
> actions.
> >> -
> >>
> >> Cuddlebeam ceases to be a Player.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I submit the following Proposal, AI-1 with the title “HUMBLE AGORAN
> FARMER
> >> WINS THE GAME”:
> >>
> >> Upon enactment of this Proposal, Cuddlebeam wins the game, and “Humble
> >> Agoran Moral Tripwire” is destroyed.
> >
> >
> > Caller's Arguments:
> >
> > CuddleBeam might have succeeded in making the Bazinga a private asset.
> > However, I find no authority in the rules that would allow em to make a
> > private asset that was also another entity (and if e failed to make it an
> > asset at all, that would be why; it depends on whether that failing is
> > separate from the asset creation failing). I find even less authority for
> > making it so that the destruction of an asset could repeal a rule,
> although
> > even if it could this attempt would likely fail because rule changes need
> > to happen in a defined order. Finally, Agora is a Nomic clearly
> intervenes
> > to stop the ruleset from being destroyed.
> >
> > Short version: this clearly doesn't work, but the judge gets to explain
> > exactly why it doesn't work. Have fun, your honor.
> >
> >
> ==
>
> Rule 2166 (Assets), relevant excerpt:
>
>An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
>granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing
>document), and existing solely because its backing document
>defines its existence.
>
> The set {Cuddlebeam's Master Switch, Agora's Ruleset} fails to satisfy
> the second part. Both elements existed independently of HAMT, and so did
> set theory in general, thus the set containing those two elements also
> existed independently of HAMT. The /name/ of that set exists solely
> because HAMT defines it, but that's not the same thing.
>
> FALSE.
>
> For completeness, here's what would happen if that second part was
> missing.
>
> Rule 2166, another relevant
