Index ← 3843 CFJ 3844 3845 → text
===============================  CFJ 3844  ===============================

      The destruction of the Bazinga asset would lead to the destruction
      of one or more rules, but for the Rule 'Agora is a Nomic'

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

Caller:                        Aris
Barred:                        Cuddlebeam

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     DISMISS

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

History:

Called by Aris:                                   11 Jun 2020 19:51:32
Assigned to Murphy:                               13 Jun 2020 16:30:59
Judged DISMISS by Murphy:                         14 Jun 2020 22:03:34

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

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
> WINS THE GAME”:
>
> 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.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

Per my judgement of CFJ 3843, Bazinga isn't an asset, thus the statement
is overly hypothetical.

DISMISS.

For completeness, even if Bazinga was an asset, the statement would
depend on how it was being destroyed. In particular, Rule 2577's 'An
asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner' would also be overridden
by Rule 105 (both are Power 3) which only allows rules to be destroyed
(repealed) by a statute (entity with positive Power), which does not
include either HAMT or Cuddle Beam; Rule 2577 would have to attempt to
act directly (e.g. 'An asset is destroyed when its owner announces it')
in order to overcome that layer of protection.


Short version: this clearly doesn't work, but the judge gets to explain
exactly why it doesn't work. Have fun, your honor.

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