I favor this one.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I spend a shiny to create the following contract, entitled "No
> Self-Indulgence":
> {{{
> Alexis SHALL NOT pend any proposal e authored.
> Alexis CAN revoke this contract by announcement.
> }}}
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> Proposal: Self-Indulgence AI=3
> {{{
> The contract "No Self-Indulgence" is destroyed.
>
> If, immediately after this proposal's submission, it was LEGAL for Alexis
> to pend it, repeal Rule 101.
> }}}
>
> I AP-CFJ:
> {{{
> It is LEGAL for me to pend the proposal "Self-Indulgence".
> }}}
>
> Arguments:
> Per Rule 2525, pending a proposal whose sole effect is to destroy a
> contract a protected action, and therefore cannot be forbidden by a
> contract. Thus, the restriction on pending proposals in "No
> Self-Indulgence" does not apply to any proposal whose sole effect is to
> destroy a contract.
>
> If it is LEGAL for me to pend Self-Indulgence, then it will repeal Rule
> 101. In this case, its effect is not solely limited to destroying a
> contract (or any of the other effects that would cause its pending to be
> protected by Rule 2525). Thus, pending it is unprotected and No
> Self-Indulgence is free to restrict it. So it must actually be ILLEGAL.
>
> If it is ILLEGAL for me to pend Self-Indulgence, then it will not repeal
> Rule 101. In this case, its effect is solely limited to destroying a
> contract, and pending it is protected. Thus No Self-Indulgence cannot
> impose on me an obligation not to pend it, so it must be LEGAL (Given that,
> as is in fact the case, there is nothing else that would make it illegal).
>
> I destroy No Self-Indulgence and withdraw Self-Indulgence.
>
