Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it: http://archive.is/FQpip
I need to go sleep, godspeed to me lol. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
