On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fourth: why is this any harder to deal with then a simple "I vote for > all players who are werewolves?" or "I vote for player A if e is a > werewolf" which is simply discarded as unclear (I think?) Using an > AFO-level of indirection doesn't alter the basic unclarity.
Yes it does. Announcements have to be clear. They cannot contain overly complex conditionals, etc. Contracts however have the power of the Rules within their own little gamestate, and can be as arbitrarily complex as desired. In CFJ 1980, I established that it is valid for me to have a contract whose gamestate depends on whether someone is a werewolf (and maybe even require the Accountor to report on it, but that's a separate bug) or anything else: the bug is in the rules if they allow undefined contract gamestate to propagate to obligations on non-parties or the Agoran gamestate generally. This is a test of whether act-on-behalf clauses can depend on contract state (for the good of the game they probably shouldn't be able to). That CFJ also establishes that the pledge bit probably works if not for consent issues (certainly I consented to that contract, but it might not be allowed to exist since nobody else agreed to it). Which, incidentally, my recent proto included a fix for. > ps. thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to > prevent contracts from being ruined by crap. Yesterday I was playing Monopoly with my brother and he loaned me some money. Later in the game he asked for it back. The Monopoly rules expressly forbid official loans, so by the rules of the game he actually gave me mone for free; but I gave him the money back anyway, because to act otherwise would be Highly Improper. I would act differently in an Agoran Monopoly contest.
