On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this method, > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that > would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token", which > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by virtue > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the property of having been created by someone else (which is the property you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face. It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be created that an entity had been created by someone other than the person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes). On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get started understanding anything. See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work). -- ais523
