Note to Jason Cobb: I'm taking the below CFJ because it hinges on a
technicality that's relevant to upcoming CFJs 3765-3766.
The below CFJ is 3761. I assign it to G.
=============================== CFJ 3761 ===============================
A party to the contract in evidence CAN create a gift by some
method.
==========================================================================
Caller: Jason Cobb
Judge: G.
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 23 Jul 2019 21:20:58
Assigned to G.: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Contract:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2019-July/041020.html
Consent of a second party:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2019-July/041021.html
Excerpt from Rule 2166 ("Assets"):
An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has
been granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's
backing document), and existing solely because its backing
document defines its existence. An asset's backing document can
generally specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
transferred.
The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have Mint
Authority. A rule defined asset is public; one defined by a
contract is private.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's Arguments:
The contract exists because two parties (G. and I) have consented to
it.
The contract directly states both that a player CAN create a gift
(in eir possession) by paying a fee of one Coin, and that a player
CANNOT create a gift by any means. The contract provides no methods
for resolving this conflict, and the Rules do not provide any means
for resolving this conflict (Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply"),
explicitly only applies to conflicts between Rules and is thus
irrelevant here), so there is no way to resolve this conflict.
Contracts have Mint Authority, and are the backing document of
Gifts, and thus can specify when and how Gifts can be created (Rule
2166); therefore, the conflicting clauses are indeed given effect by
the assets rules.
Considering the possible outcomes:
FALSE: The contract explicitly states that a player CAN create a
Gift by paying a fee of one Coin, so FALSE is not appropriate.
TRUE: The contract explicitly states that players CANNOT create
Gifts by any means, so TRUE is not appropriate.
IRRELEVANT: This is clearly relevant to the game, as whether or not
this is true affects my Coin balance (because I attempted to pay a
fee of one coin to create a Gift), which the Treasuror is required
to keep track of, so IRRELEVANT is not appropriate.
INSUFFICIENT: I believe that I have provided all necessary evidence
to issue a judgement, so INSUFFICIENT is not appropriate.
DISMISS: I argue that PARADOXICAL is appropriate, so DISMISS is not
appropriate.
PARADOXICAL: "appropriate if the statement is logically undecidable
as a result of a paradox or or (sic.) other irresolvable logical
situation." I argue that this CFJ's statement fulfills this
criterion. The statement is logically undecidable because the only
document states anything about Gifts has directly contradictory
caluses, and there is no way to determine which clause takes
precedence - thus making this an "irrresolvable logical situation".
I argue that PARADOXICAL is the only appropriate judgement.
==========================================================================
