Hello! I am a long-time observer of this game. You may call me Galle. I do not wish to register at this time.
I agree to the following contract: === 1. This is a binding contract under the rules of Agora, named "the Contradictory Contract". 2. Only Galle may join this contract. 3. Galle CAN terminate this contract by announcement. 4. Contratokens are a currency. 5. Ownership of Contratoken is restricted exclusively to Galle; no other entities can own Contratokens and Contratokens cannot be transferred to entities other than Galle. 6. Both Galle and the Contradictory Contract can own Contratokens and Contratokens can be transferred to both Galle and the Contradictory Contract. 7. Galle CAN create a Contratoken in eir possession by announcement. 8. No part of this contract takes precedence over any other. === I create a Contratoken in my possession. I call for judgment on the following statement: "Galle CAN transfer a Contratoken to the Contradictory Contract." I submit the text of the Contradictory Contract as evidence, and the following as arguments: === Getting the basics out of the way: Rules 2576 and 2577 state that I can transfer Contratokens to the Contradictory Contract if and only if their backing document says I can. Their backing document is the Contradictory Contract. However, the Contradictory Contract has a clear contradiction: sentence 5 says I can't do it, sentence 6 says I can. It has long been held that contradictions in the rules, in the absence of explicit precedence rules, create irresolvable paradoxes. The rules have therefore been carefully fine-tuned over the years to ensure that this situation can never arise, with a clear and unambiguous precedence system and a series of safeguards to prevent that system from being subverted or contradicted. However, no such system exists for contracts. So, which sentence takes precedence? I can think of five possible interpretations: First, it might be that I made a mistake, and there actually is no contradiction in the Contradictory Contract. I don't think this is likely, but anything is possible. If the judge does determine this, I ask that they also opine on how to resolve genuine contradictions within contracts. Second, if the Contradictory Contract were a rule, sentence 6 would take precedence over sentence 5 due to rule 2240. However, it is not a rule, and rule 2240 explicitly refers to rules, not other rule-like entities. We might be tempted to extend this precedence system to cover contracts as a reasonable extrapolation, but A, there is a competing interpretation which gives the opposite result, and B, the Contradictory Contract itself clearly states that it has no precedence system. Third, each sentence in the Contradictory Contract is numbered. If these sentences were each individual rules, these could be interpreted as ID numbers, and so sentence 5 would take precedence over sentence 6 due to rule 1030. This has the same issues as the previous interpretation. Fourth, perhaps the self-contradictory nature of the contract means that it is not a contract, and therefore it does not have Mint Authority, and therefore Contratokens do not exist at all. CFJ 1892 found that a purported self-contradicting contract was not a contract. However, this was decided under a previous contract rule, and the contradiction in question pertained to the contract's nature as an allegedly "non-binding contract", rather than merely to the properties of a class of asset. There was at least one CFJ (which I unfortunately cannot find at the moment) which held that a contract defining a class of assets in such a way that they were fungible, but also claiming that they were non-fungible, was valid, although it asserted a falsehood. Fifth, there is the nuclear option: because we have a contradiction, and no system of precedence for resolving it, the situation is irresolvable and this CFJ is PARADOXICAL. Long-standing game custom holds that this is the correct judgement for an irresolvable contradiction in the rules, and I believe that it is reasonable to extend that custom to other rule-like entities, such as contracts. === - Galle
