On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:17 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > On 7 October 2010 13:46, Elliott Hird <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > If I'm not active, I become active. I intend, with 1 support, and
> > > conditional on this condition not being met, to become inactive.
> >
> > With 1 support (from ais523), and conditional on the above condition, I do
> > so.
>
> I submit an inquiry CFJ on the statement "ehird can make emself the
> holder of IADoP by announcement". Arguments/evidence coming soon.
Evidence: the above thread, and this other message in it:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:56 +0100, ais523 wrote (in reference to the
13:46 +0100 message by ehird):
> I support.
>
Arguments:
First, the statement of the CFJ is merely designed to get this into
paradox form; as IADoP is vacant (Wooble resigned recently), ehird can
assume it if, and only if, e's active at the time. (Yes, this is a
paradox attempt, just to clear up any doubt about that...)
This scam exploits a bug in rule 1728, quoted here:
{{{
A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to
perform an action by a set of one or more of the following
methods (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):
1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no
greater than 8.
2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.
3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
with a minimum of 1.
4) With Notice.
thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all
of the following are true:
a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at most
fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
objections or notice) at least four days earlier.
b) At least one of the following is true:
1) The performer is the initiator.
2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due
to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer.
3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
action depends on support, the performer has supported
the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance
does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing
it.
c) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
other rules.
d) If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was
given in the announcement of intent to perform the action,
all those conditions are met.
The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.
}}}
Unlike most other parts of the rules that care about whether something
is "unambiguously" true, etc., this simply cares about whether a
condition is "met", and thus, about the exact truth value of the
statement. (And unlike CFJs, it doesn't have an UNDECIDABLE state or
anything of that nature.) It's clear that the other parts of the
dependent action are met; it's POSSIBLE for an active player to become
inactive with 1 support (rule 2288: "If a person CAN perform an action
by announcement, e CAN perform it with N support, [...], where N is a
number appropriate for that form of dependent action."), intent was
given within the last 14 days, the support was given (I supported) thus
making Agora satisfied, and the initiator was the (attempted) performer;
the only sticking point here is 1728d, which requires any set of
conditions given in the intent to be met. The condition in question,
"conditional on this condition not being met", is clearly paradoxical;
yet its truth is what governs the success or failure of ehird's attempt
to become inactive. And with no clause requiring clarity, unambiguity,
or really anything else to disassociate the success of the action from
the truth of the condition, the only conclusion is that it's undecidable
whether or not alise managed to become inactive; unlike, say,
registration where there's a requirement to be reasonably unambiguous,
there's no rule that specifies a default for paradoxical actions here.
Thus, I recommend a judgement of UNDECIDABLE.
--
ais523
