On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > 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.
Ok, but entering into the spirit of this argument, if one contract passes a value "valid FOR vote iff secret info = true" to another contract, then even *if* the conditional involves uncertainty in the Agoran gamestate, the receiving contract (and its internal state) just sees "vote iff Conditional" where conditionals either aren't specifically permitted by the contract, or are permitted, but in this case rely on unavailable information. So why (from internal operation of werewolf) is the contract not able to simply conclude "this conditional is invalid."? -G.
