Index ← 3760 CFJ 3761 3762 → text
===============================  CFJ 3761  ===============================

      A party to the contract in evidence CAN create a gift by some
      method.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        Jason Cobb

Judge:                         G.

==========================================================================

History:

Called by Jason Cobb:                             23 Jul 2019 21:20:58
Assigned to G.:                                   03 Aug 2019 00:10:08

==========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

    Contract:
    https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2019-July/041020.html

    Consent of a second party:
    https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2019-July/041021.html

    Excerpt from Rule 2166 ("Assets"):

      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. An asset's backing document can
      generally specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
      transferred.

      The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have Mint
      Authority. A rule defined asset is public; one defined by a
      contract is private.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caller's Arguments:

    The contract exists because two parties (G. and I) have consented to 
    it.

    The contract directly states both that a player CAN create a gift
    (in eir possession) by paying a fee of one Coin, and that a player
    CANNOT create a gift by any means. The contract provides no methods
    for resolving this conflict, and the Rules do not provide any means
    for resolving this conflict (Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply"),
    explicitly only applies to conflicts between Rules and is thus
    irrelevant here), so there is no way to resolve this conflict.

    Contracts have Mint Authority, and are the backing document of
    Gifts, and thus can specify when and how Gifts can be created (Rule
    2166); therefore, the conflicting clauses are indeed given effect by
    the assets rules.

    Considering the possible outcomes:

    FALSE: The contract explicitly states that a player CAN create a
    Gift by paying a fee of one Coin, so FALSE is not appropriate.

    TRUE: The contract explicitly states that players CANNOT create
    Gifts by any means, so TRUE is not appropriate.

    IRRELEVANT: This is clearly relevant to the game, as whether or not
    this is true affects my Coin balance (because I attempted to pay a
    fee of one coin to create a Gift), which the Treasuror is required
    to keep track of, so IRRELEVANT is not appropriate.

    INSUFFICIENT: I believe that I have provided all necessary evidence
    to issue a judgement, so INSUFFICIENT is not appropriate.

    DISMISS: I argue that PARADOXICAL is appropriate, so DISMISS is not
    appropriate.

    PARADOXICAL: "appropriate if the statement is logically undecidable
    as a result of a paradox or or (sic.) other irresolvable logical
    situation." I argue that this CFJ's statement fulfills this
    criterion. The statement is logically undecidable because the only
    document states anything about Gifts has directly contradictory
    caluses, and there is no way to determine which clause takes
    precedence - thus making this an "irrresolvable logical situation".
    I argue that PARADOXICAL is the only appropriate judgement.

==========================================================================