On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > > I create a promise:
> > >
> > > Text: { For the decision to adopt Proposal 7314, I end the voting
> > > period and resolve it as follows: }
> > >
> > > Condition for cashing: { The cashing announcement is followed by an
> > > accurate description of the outcome of the decision in question. }
> > >
> > > I transfer the above promise to scshunt.
> >
> > This is quite interesting in something entirely unrelated.
> >
> > Let's say that scshunt cashes this promise but makes a mistake in
> > the vote count. Let's say it self-ratifies.
> >
> > However, the Promise cashing is conditional on the announcement
> > being accurate. Promise cashing is *not* subject to self-ratification.
> >
> > So, an inaccurate voting report would mean that the promise was
> > never cashed (failed conditional), and legally, the Message from
> > the Assessor as a whole, not just a single result - was not published.
> > This is quite different than if the Assessor had made an inaccurate
> > announcement! An inaccurate report can ratify, but nonexistent
> > report cannot.
> >
> > So what's the end result?
>
> Rule 2034, relevant excerpt:
>
> A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
> constitutes self-ratifying claims that
>
> a) such a decision existed,
> b) it was resolved as indicated, and
> c) (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a
> proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.
>
> This situation:
>
> i) scshunt cashing the promise, causing
> ii) the decision being resolved
> iii) by me
> iv) with such-and-such outcome
>
> would be a public document purporting to cash a promise and thereby
> resolve an Agoran decision. R2034(b) would thus ratify the implicit
> claim that the decision was resolved "as indicated", which certainly
> includes ii) and iv), possibly iii) as well, possibly i) as well.
That depends on where you draw the public document lines.
Promise rules are pretty specific. If the promise wasn't cashed,
legally, you (Murphy) never published the document.
In other words, scshunt purporting that you publish a public
document containing claims is different than you purporting a
public document contains said claims. Because if (legally) the
promise wasn't cashed, then the purporting never happened.
Playing with the nesting a bit:
scshunt purports [Murphy purports [result]]
'scshunt purports' isn't subject to self ratification, therefore
neither is anything within the container. Another way to say it
is that the promise is really a conditional on scshunt's part:
scshunt purports [if X (cashing conditions) are true, than
Murphy purports X].
So scshunt is really making a conditional claim. Which means,
if you self-ratify this whole thing, you're self ratifying "if
X is true", which if it's false, means you're self ratifying
the failure.
-G.
