============================== CFJ 3089 ==============================
I am Arkady English
Called by Machiavelli: 09 Aug 2011 16:50:24 GMT
Assigned to Walker: 14 Aug 2011 17:51:15 GMT
Walker recused: 14 Aug 2011 20:45:26 GMT
Assigned to omd: 10 Sep 2011 18:57:37 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 10 Sep 2011 22:05:45 GMT
For multiple reasons, this may not work, but...
I intend to have Arkady English create the following promise and
transfer it to me: "Text: I perform the action specified by the
cashier. Conditions for non-destruction: 0 = 0."
Now, suppose I intend for my nephew to clean his room. It wouldn't
make any sense for him to say, "Well, I support your intent, but I'm
still not going to do it". The only reasonable way for him to support
my intent would be to actually carry it out, right? In particular, if
he supports the intent "as specified", and I specify that he cleans is
room, that means he actually cleans his room.
I create a promise with the condition "e = pi" and the text "If I have
supported or objected to an action, I retract my support or objection
for an action. I support or object the action as specified by the
casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn. OR I withdraw any
votes I have made on a specified proposal, and use all my votes in the
manner specified by the casher. These votes may not be withdrawn."
I cash the promise Arkady English transferred to me about two hours
ago, specifying that he support the intent I created above, by
carrying it out. I then destroy the promise I created in the previous
I cash the promise Arkady English created just now, specifying the
following action: calling a CFJ on the statement "I am Arkady
English". If Arkady English did not just now call a CFJ on the
statement "I am Arkady English", then I call a CFJ on that statement.
I submit this entire message as evidence in the CFJ called in the
—Tanner L. Swett
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Arkady English's vote-swap promises clearly invoked the context of
dependent actions. If Tanner's intent is interpreted as an intent to
perform a dependent action ("I intend to cause Arkady English to
create" etc.), then it fails because it didn't specify a method as
required by R1728(a), and also because "support" is implicitly defined
Judge omd's Arguments:
Partial text from the promise that the caller was trying to cash:
> I have supported or objected to an action, I retract my support
> or objection for an action. I support or object the action as
> specified by the casher. This support/objection may not be withdrawn.
This message, even if sent standalone, would indeed clearly invoke the
context of dependent actions, so I concur with Murphy's arguments and