On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be > arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just > that a text is there. > > It's not about whether it's arbitrary, it's about whether we're empowered to specify that thing and have it have an effect. The rules governing proposals cover this: 2350: "A player <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> CAN <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> create a proposal <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2350> by announcement, *specifying its text* and optionally specifying any of the following attributes:" 106: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2350> that takes effect CAN <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> and does, as part of its effect, *apply the changes that it specifies.*" You claim you can create a Murphy Trust Token and it has an effect. My argument is that, from a legal perspective, it's not a Trust Token issued by Murphy because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to specify that and have it affect the gamestate. I submit the above as gratuitous arguments. > ...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No > Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but > defending a position: > https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png > > (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.) > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a >> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around >> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a >> ballot". >> >> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing. >> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"? >> >> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an >> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I >> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an >> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An >> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! - >> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace"). >> >> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though. >> >> >> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and >> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how >> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >
