Index ← 3640 CFJ 3641 3642 → text
===============================  CFJ 3641  ===============================

      The four below actions are each extremely silly, and none
      significantly harm my standing in the game.


Caller:                        V.J. Rada

Judge:                         Corona
Judgement:                     DISMISS



Called by V.J. Rada:                              12 Jun 2018 10:47:15
Assigned to Corona:                               17 Jun 2018 18:45:48
Judged DISMISS by Corona:                         17 Jun 2018 22:51:34


Caller's evidence, quoting twg:

I become a party to the contract "Sillyness by contract".

I act on behalf of V.J. Rada to perform the following actions: {
Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (0, -1).
Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (-1, -1).
Transfer all liquid assets from the mine at (-1, -1) to V.J. Rada.
Transfer 3 stone and 2 ore from V.J. Rada to Trigon.

This meets the requirement of being extremely silly because it is only
necessary due to a minor grammatical error on Trigon's part, and it
meets the requirement of not harming V.J. Rada's standing in the game
significantly because eir only loss from these actions is 2 apples
(which ey already have plenty of) and the right to transfer assets from
a preserved facility before next Friday (which ey already have enough
assets not to have much need of).


Caller's arguments:

None of them are remotely silly. Silly in an Agoran context is a
common-law term of art related to Silly proposals. Even if not, no
ordinary meaning of the word silly encompasses these game actions. And
also, even if losing two apples doesn't harm me, losing 3 stone, two
ore and 2 apples does. The actions must all be evaluated seperately,
so even if the first three actions work, the fourth should not.
Anyway, significantly should be interpreted as "not de minimis", and
any asset loss is more than a minimal effect on my standing in the


Judge's evidence (relevant contract):

Title: Sillyness by contract
This Contract holds Coins.
Anyone may become a party to this Contract, VJ Rada is a party to this
Anyone may act on behalf of any party to this Contract to perform any
action that is extremely silly and does not harm the party's standing
in the game significantly.


Judge's Arguments:

As the caller states, the actions need to be evaluated separately;
however, they can still be silly *because* of the context. To evaluate
actions without taking context into account would be absurd, as the
concept of "silliness" itself has emerged from Agoran history and culture.

If the actions taken by twg are silly as a whole, the individual actions
necessary to perform the silly thing are each equally silly. So, are
they, in fact, silly? No, are they _extremely_ silly as the contract

‚ÄčThe caller claims that silliness relates (only) to silly proposals. The
judge, however, opines that silly proposals are not sufficiently
embedded in Agoran culture (they are a thing of the past, and even back
then they had issues with player apathy towards them) to warrant saying
that in common Agoran parlance, the word "silly" has a meaning different
from the usual one.

We've determined that "silly" shall be interpreted as in usual English --
quoting relevant dictionary definition by Google: "having or showing a
lack of common sense or judgement; absurd and foolish; ridiculously
trivial or frivolous."

This presents us with a problem. We cannot know what was the intent of
twg when performing the relevant actions, which means we cannot know
whether the actions were unpremeditated acts of foolishness or deeply
considered acts of ultimate wisdom.
To paraphrase, we do not know how self-aware, ironic, or meta twg was
being when performing the actions -- the silliness of twg's actions is

The conditional in the contract therefore is inextricable and twg's
actions were IMPOSSIBLE. Also, the first part of the statement ("The
four below actions are each extremely silly") would, used as a CFJ
statement by itself, warrant a DISMISS judgement.

But we can't dismiss the whole thing just yet -- given the caller used
the "and" conjunction, if the second part of the statement is FALSE, the
whole statement is FALSE regardless of the first part.

The judge rejects the caller's assertion that any asset loss is does
significant harm to the caller's standing. (Google Dictionary definition
of "significantly": in a sufficiently great or important way as to be
worthy of attention./Merriam-Webster: having or likely to have influence
or effect: important)

The Treasuror's transaction history shows that the caller missed plenty
of opportunities to collect assets from the public facilities, to an
extent that's unlikely to be caused by real-world lack of free time. The
judge concludes that a few units of economic currencies are unworthy of
the caller's attention, in the caller's own opinion. The caller also has
not come anywhere near to using the disputed assets, having good
reserves, meaning the destruction/transfer of the assets in question had
no effect (other than the destruction/transfer of the assets itself) on
the game so far.

Then, according to both dictionaries quoted above, the actions taken by
twg did NOT significantly harm the caller's standing in the game. The
second part of the statement is TRUE.

It is a law of logic that for any X (a truth value):
X  true = X
Meaning the truth value of the CFJed statement is identical to the truth
value of its first part, which, as you recall, is indeterminate.

I judge: "The four below actions are each extremely silly, and none
significantly harm my standing in the game." is indeterminate, so DISMISS.