Please hang on everyone. I have some brief arguments, which I'll try to post later today.
-Aris On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:36 PM Jack Henahan <jhena...@me.com> wrote: > > Certainly. I'm admittedly a bit new to judging, but I'll read some older > CFJs to get a feel for it. > > After considering a bit further, I would amend > > > precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it > > might be considered complete. > > to state instead > > > precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it > > might be considered complete except by breaking it. > > but my reasoning remains otherwise unchanged at this time. > > Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> writes: > > > If you're interested in judging, I'm happy to assign this to you! > > While your conclusion is still speculative your reasoning so far is > > solid. > > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Jack Henahan wrote: > >> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined > >> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could > >> be argued to be invalid. > >> > >> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge > >> > >> > I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or > >> > to respond in a-d to anything CB does. > >> > >> I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1] by definition > because it > >> cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2] > >> after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible > >> to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete. > >> > >> By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit, > >> "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do > >> so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have > >> been violated by the actions of the pledger". > >> > >> Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either > >> Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which > >> alter the position of the switch. > >> > >> All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes > >> a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative. > >> > >> [1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450 > >> [2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023 > >> > >> Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken > once." > >> > > >> > Arguments: > >> > > >> > Consider the text of R2450: > >> > > >> > "A player <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> SHALL NOT > >> > <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> break eir own publicly-made > >> > pledges. > >> > > >> > A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it > in > >> > a timely <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023> manner after it > >> > becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be considered broken at the > >> > moment the pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge." > >> > > >> > There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common > usage, > >> > we have several type of breaking: > >> > > >> > * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it > >> > also nullifies the contract. > >> > > >> > * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In > >> > cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss > >> > continuing it (arguably creating a new promise). > >> > > >> > * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it > >> > remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break > it > >> > more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew. > >> > > >> > Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's > >> > remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a > pledge. > >> > Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot > >> > be broken again. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ProofTechnique > >> > > > -- > ProofTechnique >
