https://twitter.com/Cuddlebeam/status/963611395257503744
I CFJ with shinies the following: That destruction (the twitter one linked
above) was legal.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another try:
>
> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2) by paying 1 shiny to
> Agora, with the following text:
>
> -------
> ~~~~Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract 2.~~~~
>
> "This sentence is false."
> The way this contract is destroyed is by making a post in Cuddlebeam's
> Twitter (@Cuddlebeam), with such a post being in the form of "I hereby
> destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the
> state of the truth-value of the statement above in the form of a string
> (for example "true" or "false").
> -------
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just in case:
>>
>> I CFJ with a payment of shinies the following: That destruction I just
>> did was possible.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I object to that intent :P
>>>
>>> Another try:
>>>
>>> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
>>> Agora, with the following text:
>>>
>>> -------
>>> ~~~~Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.~~~~
>>>
>>> "This sentence is false."
>>> The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
>>> announcement message being in the form of "I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's
>>> Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity X!", where X is the state of the truth-value
>>> of the statement above in the form of a string (for example "true" or
>>> "false").
>>> -------
>>>
>>> I hereby destroy Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract. Bipity Bopity true!
>>>
>>> I free-CFJ the following: That destruction I just did was legal.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> CFJ 3620:
>>>>
>>>> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
>>>> text:
>>>> > -------
>>>> > "This sentence is false."
>>>> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
>>>> > false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
>>>> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam
>>>> but I
>>>> > do not owe any shinies to any person.
>>>> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay
>>>> Agora
>>>> > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
>>>> > -------
>>>>
>>>> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
>>>> > CuddleBeam at least one shiny.
>>>>
>>>> Rule 2523 provides that obligations in contracts to refrain from actions
>>>> that are subject to inextricable conditionals are, effectively,
>>>> ineffective. It says nothing, however, about positive obligations to
>>>> act.
>>>> So the mere attempt to use an indeterminate statement to impose the
>>>> obligation is not barred.
>>>>
>>>> There are some questions about exactly how the text of the contract
>>>> should
>>>> be interpreted, since it says "I owe 1 shinies to Agora" which is a
>>>> sentence written as if it's always speaking. However, unlike with
>>>> rules, we
>>>> are directed by Rule 2525 to apply, among other things, the intent of
>>>> the
>>>> parties. In this case, I think it is correct to resolve the ambiguity
>>>> about
>>>> a possibly unfulfillable obligation in favour of the interpretation of
>>>> the
>>>> parties.
>>>>
>>>> Note that there is no way for a contract to automatically transfer
>>>> shinies.
>>>> If it were possible, then the effect of the contract would be to effect
>>>> a
>>>> transfer immediately, meaning that the obligation (if it exists) is
>>>> discharged.
>>>>
>>>> Consequently, I judge this case PARADOXICAL. It is not resolvable
>>>> whether
>>>> or not there is an obligation, and the rules provide no resolution for
>>>> the
>>>> paradox.
>>>>
>>>> I will go a little bit obiter, however, to observe that this CFJ is not
>>>> about the legality or possibility of a game action, and thereby fails to
>>>> meet the requirements for a win by paradox.
>>>>
>>>> CFJ 3621:
>>>>
>>>> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following
>>>> text:
>>>> > -------
>>>> > "This sentence is false."
>>>> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
>>>> false,
>>>> > I owe no shinies to Agora.
>>>> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to Nichdel but I
>>>> do
>>>> > not owe any shinies to any person.
>>>> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay
>>>> Agora
>>>> and
>>>> > Nichdel what I owe them within a week of owing.
>>>> > -------
>>>>
>>>> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay
>>>> > Nichdel at least one shiny.
>>>>
>>>> This one is IRRELEVANT; it's trivially determined by the previous case.
>>>>
>>>> Proposal: Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix (AI=2.4)
>>>> {{{
>>>> Amend Rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing "If whether an
>>>> action is permitted or forbidden by a contract" with "If whether an
>>>> action
>>>> is permitted, forbidden, required, or made optional by a contract".
>>>> }}}
>>>>
>>>> I intend, without objection, to pend this proposal.
>>>>
>>>> -Alexis
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
