Index ← 3842 CFJ 3843 3844 → text
===============================  CFJ 3843  ===============================

      The Bazinga is a destructible private asset.


Caller:                        Aris
Barred:                        Cuddlebeam

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Aris:                                   11 Jun 2020 19:51:32
Assigned to Murphy:                               13 Jun 2020 16:30:34
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                           14 Jun 2020 21:50:51


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
> 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.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

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.


For completeness, here's what would happen if that second part was

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.