By the way I hope everyone knows I will call all future CFJs with magic about how it is possible to do something just in case of indeterminacy
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:32 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh yes, that in 2166 will do it. Fine, I retract my two most recent CFJs > and destroy my most recent contract. I could just re-CFJ the original CFJ > with slightly different magic words phrasing but that would risk > IRRELEVANCE (for duplication and no change in current game state). hmmmm > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/7/2020 12:28 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >> > I create a contract with the following text >> > >> > "Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this >> > contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to trasnfer one coin away from em >> to >> > emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule >> titled >> > "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its >> enactment, >> > and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, the current >> > position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of this >> > contract." >> >> Gratuitous: >> >> You can't do this with a contract, in the way you can't make a paradox by >> conditional announcement (e.g. "If this statement is false, I transfer a >> coin"). >> >> I'll find the precedent before I assign the case, but in R2166 this part: >> "An asset's backing document can generally specify when and how that asset >> is created, destroyed, and transferred." uses "specify" which does not >> allow for indeterminate conditionals - those are unclear and fail. >> >> The sole reason it worked in the previous version is the "text of the >> rules has precedence" concept. (I had some text about this in CFJ 3828 to >> explain why doing it by-rule would lead to paradox but doing it >> by-proposal, without a rule, would outright fail, but it seemed like a >> digression and I cut it). >> >> So if it's in a rule, paradoxical conditionals are still "resolved" as >> indeterminate because those texts have special status. But contracts, >> like announcements, don't, so they fail if they don't clearly specify >> (without ambiguity OR indeterminacy). >> >> This is why you have to be more careful of voting for rules texts than >> when creating other types of backing documents. >> >> >> > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
