> It seems in the best interests of the game THERE HE IS
THAT LITTLE GREMLIN CLAUSE IN R217 AGAIN IN THE CFJS On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:51 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > G. wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 3843. I assign it to Murphy. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3843 > > > > =============================== CFJ 3843 > =============================== > > > > The Bazinga is a destructible private asset. > > > > > ========================================================================== > > > > Caller: Aris > > Barred: Cuddlebeam > > > > Judge: Murphy > > > > > ========================================================================== > > > > History: > > > > Called by Aris: 11 Jun 2020 19:51:32 > > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > > > > ========================================================================== > > > > Caller's Evidence: > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 Cuddlbeam wrote: > >> > >> I’m unsure how much power we have in “defining an entity” for the > purposes > >> of contract-defined Assets, but eh life is short, I’ll give it a shot. > >> Also, this doesn’t violate DADA, rather, it aims to exploit it seeing > how > >> G. was punished for Dark Arts recently. It maybe even has support from > AIAN > >> but I have no idea. Anyways baby, let’s go. > >> > >> > >> (About the Bazinga: it didn't exist as gamestate before this contract > >> existed, right? With that specific name and all, which is a lot > different > >> from just the set alone, namelessly. So it exists by virtue of the > >> contract. That's important for R2166.) > >> > >> I create the following contract called “Humble Agoran Moral Tripwire”: > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> The set consisting of Cuddlebeam’s Master Switch and Agora’s Ruleset is > >> defined to be the Bazinga entity. And, of course, there is only one > >> Bazinga. > >> > >> The Bazinga is a destructible asset that can only be owned by Cuddlebeam > >> and is owned by Cuddlebeam. > >> > >> The Bazinga is destroyed whenever any event described in the Big Evil > List > >> happens. > >> > >> The Big Evil List is: > >> > >> > >> - > >> > >> Cuddlebeam’s Karma lowers > >> - > >> > >> Cuddlebeam gains a Blot > >> - > >> > >> Someone casts a vote of anything other than FOR, on any of > Cuddlebeam’s > >> Proposals that have their title in all capital letters. > >> - > >> > >> Someone other than Cuddlebeam performs a scam > >> - > >> > >> Someone other than Cuddlebeam uses the trick involving Rule 2617 > and/or > >> Rule 1698 that this contract employs. > >> - > >> > >> This Contract ceases to exist by means other than Cuddlebeam’s own > >> Proposals. > >> - > >> > >> This Contract is amended by means other than Cuddlebeam’s own > actions. > >> - > >> > >> Cuddlebeam ceases to be a Player. > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> I submit the following Proposal, AI-1 with the title “HUMBLE AGORAN > FARMER > >> WINS THE GAME”: > >> > >> Upon enactment of this Proposal, Cuddlebeam wins the game, and “Humble > >> Agoran Moral Tripwire” is destroyed. > > > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > > > CuddleBeam might have succeeded in making the Bazinga a private asset. > > However, I find no authority in the rules that would allow em to make a > > private asset that was also another entity (and if e failed to make it an > > asset at all, that would be why; it depends on whether that failing is > > separate from the asset creation failing). I find even less authority for > > making it so that the destruction of an asset could repeal a rule, > although > > even if it could this attempt would likely fail because rule changes need > > to happen in a defined order. Finally, Agora is a Nomic clearly > intervenes > > to stop the ruleset from being destroyed. > > > > Short version: this clearly doesn't work, but the judge gets to explain > > exactly why it doesn't work. Have fun, your honor. > > > > > ========================================================================== > > Rule 2166 (Assets), relevant excerpt: > > An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been > granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing > document), and existing solely because its backing document > defines its existence. > > The set {Cuddlebeam's Master Switch, Agora's Ruleset} fails to satisfy > the second part. Both elements existed independently of HAMT, and so did > set theory in general, thus the set containing those two elements also > existed independently of HAMT. The /name/ of that set exists solely > because HAMT defines it, but that's not the same thing. > > FALSE. > > For completeness, here's what would happen if that second part was > missing. > > Rule 2166, another relevant excerpt: > > An asset defined by rule or regulation is public; any > other asset is private. > > If Bazinga was defined by both a rule and HAMT, then it would still be > defined by a rule (just not /solely/ by a rule), so it would be public > and not private. It seems in the best interests of the game to prevent > contracts/etc. from switching a rule-defined asset from public to > private just by saying that they also define it. > > Rule 2577, relevant excerpt: > > An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, > subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible > asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT > be destroyed except as explicitly specified by its backing > document; any other asset is destructible. > > Neither the rules nor HAMT define Bazinga as indestructible, so by > default it would be 'destructible', though actually destroying it would > be blocked via 'modification' by Rules 101 and 1698 unless they were > repealed first. > >
