Good judgement. On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > CFJ 3609 Statement: >> > {{{ >> > It is LEGAL for me to pend the proposal "Self-Indulgence". >> > }}} > > > CFJ 3609 Judgement: > > This is the first case being judged where PARADOXICAL is potentially > appropriate as a judgement (Proposal 7976 adopted November 26). As > such, there are some ground rules to consider. In particular, when > paradox was previously part of win conditions, the apparent ability of > contracts to create arbitrary/circular text led to an explosion of > paradox attempts. It's important, as a matter of precedent going > forward, to consider contracts as "natural agreements" to work in a > straightforward manner within a body of law, and apply very strict > scrutiny to attempts to set up paradoxes, by asking whether the rules > explicitly enable the paradox (this is a note to future judges of > potentially PARADOXICAL cases). > > Ok, with that statement of judicial bias in mind, the facts. This case > hinges on what the "effects" of a proposal are, for the purposes of this > clause of R2525: >> The following are protected actions: >> [...] >> 2. Submitting, pending, or voting freely on a proposal, but only >> if the sole effect the proposal would have if adopted is to >> create, modify, or destroy a contract or group of contracts, or >> to cause an entity or group of entities to become or cease to >> be a contract or group of contracts; > > So we need to ask: what are the "effects" of a proposal, from which > we can identify a "sole" effect? > > It's possible to be highly pedantic and say "every character of a > proposal has a game effect", because it would affect the outcome of a > later CFJ "Does Proposal N contain text Z"? But this doesn't satisfy. > The appropriate legal question is: Is it IRRELEVANT that the proposal > contained a specific body of text, at the time the Proposal as a whole > takes effect? If so, the text didn't have an effect. > > To this end, []-delimited comments are a good example. The test is, if > you could replace the text in the [] with any arbitrary text, would it > change an outcome? In general, for clearly-delimited comments, no. So > to set that limit: comment text has no game effect (other than the > aforementioned trivial, after-the-fact CFJ). So in general, the test is: > if a part of the proposal text could be replaced with other arbitrary > text without changing the results when it takes effect, that text has no > "effect" for R2525 purposes. > > So, what about a conditional clause? It's important to note that, > while we've judged conditionals on "by announcement" actions to be > informal conveniences without the weight of law, this is not true for > conditionals within Proposals. As instruments, any contained > conditionals should be evaluated similarly to conditionals contained in > the rules, and if their evaluation leads to a paradox, it doesn't > outright nullify the action (the way it would for a conditional on a > by-announcement action), so ambiguity/paradox alone doesn't stop the > conditional from (potentially) having an effect. > > It helps to look at a non-paradoxical case. What if the clause is > simply "If FALSE, then Y"? Since we can trivially evaluate the > conditional clause as FALSE, we can use lazy evaluation of clause Y and > ignore it (not evaluate it). It doesn't matter what Y says, as long as > the conditional is FALSE, then Y can be any text without game effect. > > So if a conditional clause is FALSE, the following clause Y has no game > effect, as the Caller states. > > But what about the conditional clause itself? Could we change it? No! > Obviously, if we changed "if FALSE" to "if TRUE", then the following > clause Y would have game effect. Which means that, whether FALSE, TRUE, > or indeterminate, the conditional clause itself has the formal game > effect of telling us whether to evaluate Y for game effect. > > Therefore, regardless of the truth value of the conditional clause > (including if its truth value is indeterminate), its very existence > instructs us to evaluate whether the following clause has an effect, so > the conditional clause itself has a game effect. > > Therefore, the proposal does not have the "sole effect" of modifying a > contract, regardless of the truth of its conditional clause. So it was > possible for the Contract to forbid pending it, and it was ILLEGAL for > Alexis to pend it. I find this CFJ to be FALSE. > > > CALLER'S ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE: > >> 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. > > >
-- >From V.J. Rada
