On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 12:06, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber <davidsee...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > If this is accepted, {
> >
> > { I cfj the following:
> >
> > "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> >
> > Argument in favour :
> >
> > Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> > The highest bidder wins the auction.
> > Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> > }
> >
> > AND
> >
> > { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was
> > evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by Trigon,
> > instead of ignoring it.}
> >
> > }
>
> This attempted finger pointing is subject to an inextricable conditional.
> Does that mean that it is INEFFECTIVE per Rule 2517? That Rule defines
> certain conditions as extricable or inextricable, but doesn't seem to say
> that that distinction matters for purposes of EFFECTIVENESS.
I think it was ineffective, but not because of Rule 2517, which (I
think) doesn't say anything about inextricability making things
ineffective.
My arguments:
1. It sounds like Baron von Vaderham tried to take a future action in
this message: a natural reading of "If this is accepted, X" is that e
does X once it is accepted. But e cannot take a future action in the
message because R478 says:
> Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time
> date-stamped on that message.
2. If you don't accept that it was an attempt to take an action in the
future, then we read it as "If this will be accepted, then X". But
both actions in X (Initiating a CFJ and pointing a finger) are both
done by announcement. R478 says:
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
I don't think saying "if (something impossible to determine at this
time) then X" counts as unambiguously and clearly performing X. In
fact, I don't see any rule that explicitly allows players to take
actions by saying "if X then I do Y" so I think we're already pushing
the limits of this clause of R478 when we do this with simple
conditions, if it indeed works at all.
Another thought: I tried to think of a way to win by paradox by taking
some actions conditioned on paradoxical conditions. E.g: if this
message will cause me to earn my Registrar reward before my Treasuror
reward, I earn my Treasuror reward. Now I earn my Registrar reward.
Now I earn my Treasuror reward. But I think that doesn't work for the
above reasons. I thought about doing it with Notices of Honour, which
aren't done "by announcement", but I don't think I can conditionally
publish something: I think saying "If X then I publish Y" would have
the effect of publishing Y regardless of whether X is true, because
it's right there in the message.
