Index ← 1981 CFJ 1982 1983 → text
==============================  CFJ 1982  ==============================

    comex CAN initiate an equity case concerning the Gnarlier Contract


Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              UNDECIDABLE



Called by ehird:                        30 May 2008 21:32:39 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     31 May 2008 01:03:04 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by Wooble:           05 Jun 2008 13:06:20 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

See ais523's arguments on CFJ 1975. That particular CFJ was
judged FALSE due to rule 2197. However, whether a non-party can
initiate an equity case depends on whether the contract is a pledge,
and this depends on ais523's gnarlierness, which I don't know; initiating
an equity case is also not affected by rule 2197, as it is not a
Contract Change. To repeat my arguments: TRUE and FALSE are both
inappropriate, because ais523's gnarlierness is unknown (and mine, being
slippier, is definitely not mixier, so my gnarlierness is the only
one that matters here), IRRELEVANT is inappropriate because for all I
know, comex might want to initiate an equity case, and anyway whether
e does or not the knowledge of whether e can is relevant to the game,
and so only UNDETERMINED or UNDECIDABLE can be appropriate. I feel
that UNDETERMINED is inappropriate because the lack of knowledge of
ais523's gnarlierness depends on the interpretation of the rules (for
instance, if there were a rule "Whenever an exiled entity is ever
not a player, e is registered", it would cause the same sort of
trigger loop as this one, and interpretation of those rules would
determine whether the entity in question were a party. UNDECIDABLE is
appropriate, however; the statement is not capable of being accurately
described as either true or false because it depends on unknown and
unknowable information.


Caller's Evidence:

the following message (heh, a legitimate reason to top-
-----Original Message-----
From: on behalf of Alexander Smith
Sent: Thu 29/05/2008 18:00
Subject: BUS: RE: Salvaging the Gnarly Contract

I hereby publish the text and membership of the Gnarlier Contract,
a public contract:

1. This is a public contract.

2. This is a pledge if and only if the gnarlierness of any of its
parties is mixier.

3. Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.

4. There is a property associated with each party to this contract,
known as eir gnarlierness; it acts much like a switch possessed by
parties to this contract with values in the set {slippier, spikier,
twistier, mixier}, with slippier being the default. (It is not a
switch because it is not defined by the rules, and it is not tracked
by an officer.) A party's gnarlierness CAN be flipped as described
in this contract, and by this contract, and CANNOT be flipped except
as allowed by this contract.

5. Any party to this contract may flip eir gnarlierness to either
slippier or twistier by announcement.

6. Whenever a party's gnarlierness becomes twistier (including, but
not limited to, being flipped to twistier), it is flipped to mixier.

7. Whenever a party's gnarlierness becomes mixier (including, but
not limited to, being flipped to mixier), it is flipped to spikier.

8. Whenever a party's gnarliness becomes spikier (including, but
not limited to, being flipped to spikier), it is flipped to twistier.

9. A party CAN leave this contract by announcement.
Membership: ais523, ehird.

I flip my gnarlierness to twistier.


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

I defer to the precedent in CFJ 1980 on the exact same question, and

I look forward to the effort by the callers to resolve the paradox.