On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:20, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > ais523 wrote: > >> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:49 +0100, ais523 wrote: >>> For each public contract (see the list at >>> <http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/system:page-tags/tag/public>), I >>> intend, without objection; I intend, without member objection; and I >>> intend, without 3 objections; to replace its entire text with the >>> following: >>> {{{ >>> I. Background >>> >>> This is a public Legalistic contract; if for some reason, it isn't >>> Legalistic despite this sentence, any player CAN flip it to Legalistic >>> by announcement. >>> >>> II. Joining, Leaving, and Amendment >>> >>> Any person CAN join this contract; parties to this contract can leave it >>> with ais523's permission, but not otherwise. Note that such permission >>> must be given by ais523 directly, not via someone acting on ais523's >>> behalf. >>> >>> ais523 CAN terminate this contract by announcement, but only via acting >>> directly, not via someone else acting on eir behalf; in addition, ais523 >>> CAN amend it (with the same caveat that e must be the Executor for the >>> action to succeed) if e publically explains the change e plans to make >>> at least 4 days before e actually makes it, and no non-Punished player >>> states publically that e disagrees. [[In other words, "without >>> objection" but with different language; I don't want to get mousetrapped >>> the same way myself.]] >>> >>> III. Punishment >>> >>> A person is Punished if e is not ais523, and (additionally) either or >>> both of the following cases hold: >>> - e is party to a contract that contains a section verbatim identical >>> to this one (including this contract), yet has violated at least one >>> of its terms; or >>> - e objected to at least one dependent action with ais523 as its >>> Executor in the 14 days before this contract came to contain this >>> section. >>> >>> ais523 CAN perform any action on behalf of a Punished person. [[Mind >>> games; you're getting trapped a lot worse than you would be otherwise if >>> you try to fight the scams. You might avoid one of them, but all of >>> them?]] >>> >>> IV. A Token Reward >>> >>> ais523 CAN act on behalf of any party to this contract to do any of the >>> following, and each party to this contract consents to this: >>> - Cause em to terminate a contract [[as an extra safeguard against me >>> being mousetrapped]] >>> - Cause em to retract votes and/or cast a particular vote (or votes) on >>> a proposal (to be precise, the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt >>> it), so long as ais523 did not do this with respect to that party with >>> respect to any other proposal in the same distribution. >>> >>> If ais523 causes a party to this contract to cast and/or retract a vote >>> this way, that party SHALL NOT cast and/or retract votes on the same >>> proposal, except via ais523 acting on eir behalf. >>> >>> [[In other words; if this mousetrap sticks (and with several different >>> scams trying to push it through, I'm relatively confident it will, at >>> least to some extent), I'm planning to use the votes of everyone in it >>> to force through a token dictatorship proposal, or something similar, >>> and after that I'll wait until it definitely passed, then end the >>> mousetrap.]] >>> >>> V. Miscellanea >>> >>> This contract contains the word "inferences". >>> >>> Swann SHALL NOT take the Office of Notary. >>> }}} >> First, here's the scam that was basically guaranteed to work at least >> partially, and it did. (The others can wait.) >> >> Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not >> With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice, >> and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that >> I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Points Party to the >> text shown within the {{{ }}} marks in the quote above. >> >> Some people managed to leave Points Party during the notice period >> (which is possible); however, most people who were party to it didn't, >> so I've still mousetrapped quite a number of people. >> >> I'll see about some of the higher-risk scams (that can affect other >> contracts too) some time soon, probably. (I think /this/ one is pretty >> clear-cut (see CFJ 2624; this one is even more obvious as it uses >> plain-language notice rather than Agoran intent), but if anyone thinks >> it doesn't work, let me know.) > > YAFI, YGI. CFJ, disqualifying ais523: ais523 successfully amended > Points Party in the message quoted in evidence. > > Arguments: "with 4 days notice" is close enough to "With Notice" that > it arguably counts as a synonym, in which case it failed because Rule > 1728 (a) requires specifying the method up front. > > Evidence: the above-quoted message. > > I leave the Points Party. (Disclaimer: This fails if the above CFJ > statement is FALSE.) > Wouldn't this fail if the CFJ were TRUE also? If ais523 already amended the Points Party, then the change period has already expired and you may no longer leave the contract. If ais523 failed to amend the Points Party then you were also unable to leave (since that would mean eir notice to amend was invalid).
BobTHJ
