The below is CFJ 3768. I assign it to Trigon.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:16 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I CFJ: "A party to the contract in evidence CAN act on behalf of the
> other party to transfer a coin.'
>
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> Contract:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-August/041185.html
>
> Consent of a second party:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-August/041186.html
>
> Excerpt from Rule 1742/21 ("Contracts"):
>
> A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
> as permitted by the contract's text:
>
> * Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
>
> * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract.
>
> * By announcement, take liquid assets from the contract.
>
> }
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> The contract exists because two parties (G. and I) have consented to it,
> and neither has ceased being party to the contract.
>
> The contract states that
>
> If "this statement is false" is a true statement, each party to this
> contract is permitted to, and CAN, once, and only once, act on
> behalf of the other party to transfer one (1) Coin to this contract.
>
> This contract, subject to a conditional, permits a party to act on
> behalf of another party to it. Thus, whether or not Rule 1742 states
> that I CAN act on behalf of another party is directly dependent on the
> conditional specified by the contract. However, this conditional is a
> paradoxical statement (the liar paradox). Thus, whether the Rule states
> that I CAN act on behalf depends on a paradoxical statement. The other
> part of the requirements is fulfilled, as I have not acted-on-behalf of
> G. pursuant to this contract before.
>
> Considering the possible outcomes:
>
> FALSE: To reach this outcome one would need to find that "this statement
> is false" is false, which is not a valid assessment of that statement's
> truthfulness (it is a paradox); FALSE is not appropriate.
>
> TRUE: As above, but would need to find the statement true; TRUE is not
> appropriate.
>
> IRRELEVANT: Whether or not I can act on behalf of G. is absolutely
> relevant because it is on the permissibility of an action that affects a
> quantity that the Treasuror must keep track of; I make this further
> relevant by actually attempting to perform this action later in the
> message in which I submit this case. This is therefore relevant to the
> game; IRRELEVANT is not appropriate.
>
> INSUFFICIENT: I have (hopefully) given the judge everything that e needs
> to issue a judgement; 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", I argue that this is in fact true, as the
> statement depends on the truthfulness of the liar paradox; I argue that
> PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
>
> }
>
>
> And to make this RELEVANT: If I CAN do so, I cause G. to transfer 1 coin
> to the below contract.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 8/3/19 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Sure I'll bite (but I'll leave the judging to someone else).
> >
> > I consent to the below contract.
> >
> > On 8/3/2019 1:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> On 8/3/19 4:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, when I set this up with you I thought it would be a long
> >>> discussion
> >>> about whether contract precedence should be forwards or backwards or
> >>> whether
> >>> there were other general interpretation principles that could apply
> >>> (with a
> >>> good chance of a "nope - this is paradoxical" result). The
> >>> importance of
> >>> the exact Rule link language ('specify') only occurred to me this
> >>> morning.
> >>>
> >>> -G.
> >>
> >>
> >> Alright. Looks like act-on-behalf only uses "permitted" (not
> >> "specified"), and I would guess (read: hope) that a contract that
> >> permits something based on a paradox is paradoxical.
> >>
> >> Would you like to try again, with this contract (which I consent to)?
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> 0. Only G. and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any
> >> other person becomes party to this contract, e immediately ceases to
> >> be a party, and, the rest of the contract notwithstanding, CANNOT
> >> perform any actions permitted by this contract.
> >>
> >> 1. A party to this contract CAN cease being a contract by announcement.
> >>
> >> 2. If "this statement is false" is a true statement, each party to
> >> this contract is permitted to, and CAN, once, and only once, act on
> >> behalf of the other party to transfer one (1) Coin to this contract.
> >>
> >> 3. A party to this contract is permitted to, and CAN, take any liquid
> >> assets from this contract by announcement.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
