Index ← 3930 CFJ 3931 3932 → text
===============================  CFJ 3931  ===============================

      In this message I have won the game.


Caller:                        Cuddlebeam

Judge:                         ais523
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Cuddlebeam:                             13 Sep 2021 13:24:42
Assigned to ais523:                               17 Sep 2021 02:59:10
Judged FALSE by ais523:                           20 Sep 2021 01:36:32


Caller's Evidence:

On 2021-09-13 23:24, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the following contract called "Anime Powers":
> -+-
> An anime is an asset. It can be held by any person, and Cuddlebeam can
> create one in his ownership by announcement. Cuddlebeam is the recordkeepor
> of animes.
> The following list are the modifications to the transferral of animes:
> - Animes CANNOT be transferred during the years 69, 420 or 8008135.
> - When some natural number amount of animes are transferred, Cuddlebeam
> wins the game of Agora nomic.
> - When a person attempts to transfer no animes, Cuddlebeam wins the game of
> Agora nomic.
> -+-
> I create an anime in my ownership.
> I transfer one anime from myself to Peter Suber.
> I transfer no animes from myself to Peter Suber.

Caller's Arguments:

- Winning is regulated, and asset transfer is also regulated.
- Asset transfer is regulated, and it seems like "An asset generally CAN be
transferred (syn. given) by announcement by its owner to another entity,
subject to modification by its backing document." allows you to 'inject'
into the ruleset some text by indirect means. In fact, I can't transfer
animes during the year 420; but that's not textually explicit in the
ruleset, it's in the contract, but the ruleset is bound to what that
contract says, because the ruleset itself says so.
- So, regulated actions don't need to have their mechanisms entirely
textually explicit in the rules themselves. (Many contract and promise
regulated actions require this to be true.)
- So, someone can win (a regulated action) without its method being just
plainly spelt out into the Ruleset.
- Back to "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by
announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
backing document.", there doesn't seem to be any limits (in regards to
doing this, winning the game) to the scope of these modifications.
- Winning Agora is regulated (it's tracked by the Rulekeepor), but we've
already established that regulated actions don't need to have all of their
mechanisms textually explicit in the Ruleset itself, that they can 'read'
text from elsewhere and have that be as binding as the 'reading' mechanism
allows - eg. promise rules, contract rules, Regulation rules, etc.
- I also tried to use the "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful"
clause if that's ever relevant somehow.
- So yeah. I think I won.
- I know for sure that the Judge is a very cool person. So cool in fact,
that they will apply P1R217 in my favor, should it be required to be


Judge ais523's Arguments:

There are a few relevant questions surrounding this CFJ:
a) What "subject to modification" means in rule 2577.
b) Whether there were issues with Cuddlebeam's wording which prevent
   the scam working, even if the relevant rules supported it.
c) Whether there are precedence issues that prevent Cuddlebeam winning
   even if the text injection was successful.

Starting with b), because it gives a simple (if unsatisfying)
resolution to the CFJ. Cuddlebeam phrased eir attempted modifications
to the asset transfer action as "when". To me, this implies that the
asset transfer goes through first, and then the contract attempts to
cause something to happen as a consequence of that. I don't think that
sufficient to count as a modification to the asset transfer action (in
particular, if it failed, it wouldn't cause the transfer to fail, which
implies that it's something separate rather than the whole). So I judge

Looking at point c) also brings us to the same conclusion. Rule 2449
starts "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,"
implying that only a Rule can make the statement that a player wins. We
used to have an explicit rule that allowed players to win by proposal –
wins as a consequence of a proposal passing wouldn't have been valid
without that rule. It's since been repealed, and to win the game by
proposal nowadays, you need to create a rule that gives you the win
(rather than trying to have the proposal give you a win directly).

This implies that any sort of ruletext injection that awarded wins
would have to cause the rule itself to state that a player won the
game. With a "subject to modification by a contract" clause, it's the
*contract* that's stating that a player won the game. And because rule
2140 bans a power-0 contract from setting or modifying any aspect of a 
positive-power rule that affects its operation, there's no way for the
contract to cause a rule to state that Cuddlebeam wins the game either.
So, still FALSE.

These are both unsatisfying lines of reasoning, though – although they
let us answer the question asked in the CFJ, they don't solve the
underlying problem of whether the underlying scam is workable (for,
e.g., doing unsecured things). So let's look at point a) now; what do
the rules mean when they say something "subject to modification by [a]
backing document"?

R2577 uses the phrasing "generally CAN … by announcement … subject to
modification". By far the most sensible reading of the rule (which I
think may be the only reading supported by the text, but even if
not, it's surely the reading supported by game custom and common
sense) is that the "subject to modification" applies to the "generally
CAN … by announcement"; in other words, this is something you can
normally do by announcement, but that can be modified, and the "that"
here seems to be the "you can do it by announcement". So in other
words, the modifications suggested by the rules are modifications to
the mechanism via which the destruction or transfer happens.

Even if the text of the rules is considered to be "silent" or "unclear"
on the matter, and I'm not sure they are, R217 is in agreement with my
interpretation of what the text says. Game custom is definitely on its
side; the modifications that we typically see in practice are things
like "you can't do this" or "you can do this by paying a fee" or "you
can do this without objection", etc.. The best interests of the game,
and common sense, also suggest that the modifications should be things
that the backing document "can do anyway"; preventing an asset being
transferred is effectively the same as automatically moving it back,
and preventing it being destroyed is effectively the same as recreating

Also potentially relevant, but pointing to the same conclusion, is
R2166: "An asset's backing document can generally specify when and how
that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred". "When and how"
sounds a lot like "the backing document controls the mechanism, but doesn't 
have influence over the effects on other parts of the gamestate when the 
mechanism is successfully used".

And of course, if what the backing document controls is the mechanism,
this means that you can't leverage it into winning the game as a
consequence of a successful transfer. "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful"; but that doesn't mean you get to choose what those
attempts do (they simply just transfer no assets, it says that right in
the rule). It just means that a contract gets to choose what counts as
an attempt to transfer none of its assets, and what doesn't.

Anyway, this CFJ is FALSE, as I judged earlier in the message; there
are three grounds on which the win could reasonably have failed, and it
in fact failed on all three of them.