Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
Well, I retract my latest CFJ. Keeping my contract tho. I could just have a mechanism for amending it but I like to "amend" it without actually amending lol. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Aaand scrubbing my canvas clean: > > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: > > " " > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith > wrote: > >> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:11 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > That said: >> > >> > I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with >> coin: >> > >> > "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted >> as >> > being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has >> sent >> > to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this >> contract. >> > >> > " >> > >> > --*-- >> > >> > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: >> > >> > Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement >> > >> > --*-- >> > >> > I win the game by announcement. >> > >> > I CFJ: I just won the game. >> > >> > Grat. Arguments: >> >> Those are caller's arguments, not gratuitous arguments, because you >> called the CFJ. >> >> > I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with >> the >> > CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract >> > being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement >> being >> > made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) >> > >> > I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I >> > believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. >> >> Gratuitous arguments: the precedent in question is defining the meaning >> of a sentence; it's not a rule that triggers off observing sentences in >> contracts. So any CAN requirement that gets implied into the contract >> will trigger only with the capabilities of what the contract itself >> allows. >> >> (This is much the same principle as, say, referencing coins in a >> contract; the rules define what a contract means when it talks about >> coins, but that doesn't give the contract any power to change the rules >> via trying to define properties of them.) >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
Aaand scrubbing my canvas clean: The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: " " On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:11 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > That said: > > > > I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with > coin: > > > > "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted > as > > being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has > sent > > to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this > contract. > > > > " > > > > --*-- > > > > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: > > > > Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement > > > > --*-- > > > > I win the game by announcement. > > > > I CFJ: I just won the game. > > > > Grat. Arguments: > > Those are caller's arguments, not gratuitous arguments, because you > called the CFJ. > > > I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with > the > > CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract > > being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement > being > > made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) > > > > I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I > > believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. > > Gratuitous arguments: the precedent in question is defining the meaning > of a sentence; it's not a rule that triggers off observing sentences in > contracts. So any CAN requirement that gets implied into the contract > will trigger only with the capabilities of what the contract itself > allows. > > (This is much the same principle as, say, referencing coins in a > contract; the rules define what a contract means when it talks about > coins, but that doesn't give the contract any power to change the rules > via trying to define properties of them.) > > -- > ais523 >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:11 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > That said: > > I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with coin: > > "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted as > being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has sent > to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this contract. > > " > > --*-- > > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: > > Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement > > --*-- > > I win the game by announcement. > > I CFJ: I just won the game. > > Grat. Arguments: Those are caller's arguments, not gratuitous arguments, because you called the CFJ. > I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with the > CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract > being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement being > made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) > > I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I > believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. Gratuitous arguments: the precedent in question is defining the meaning of a sentence; it's not a rule that triggers off observing sentences in contracts. So any CAN requirement that gets implied into the contract will trigger only with the capabilities of what the contract itself allows. (This is much the same principle as, say, referencing coins in a contract; the rules define what a contract means when it talks about coins, but that doesn't give the contract any power to change the rules via trying to define properties of them.) -- ais523
BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
That said: I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with coin: "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted as being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has sent to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this contract. " --*-- The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement --*-- I win the game by announcement. I CFJ: I just won the game. Grat. Arguments: I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with the CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement being made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I think this applies > > CFJ 2120-2121 (called Aug 04, 2008): > > A requirement of the form 'within , a player SHALL >by announcement' means that the player CAN perform the > action, and SHALL do so within the time limit. > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> I don't see a CAN in that sentence? >> >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > "If Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor SHALL transfer it >> to >> > Agora in a timely fashion, destroy any facilities on the Land Unit, >> > and set *all >> > other switches* to their default values." >> > >> > >all other switches >> > >> > Which means citizenship, ribbons, etc. Fortunately that rule is Power 2 >> and >> > Citizenship is at 3, so it can't be done. And because of that, the >> > Cartographer can't do that action (because R1688), yet, he SHALL. >> > >> > So yeah, I think that's a bit busted. >> > >> >> >
