==============================  CFJ 2558  ==============================

    Test Subject is Green.


Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by scshunt:                      01 Jun 2009 23:10:39 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     06 Jun 2009 06:39:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 09 Jun 2009 09:19:38 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

There are three possibilities here. The first is that the
creation of the contract flips the switch by virtue of having it come to
be a given value. In that case, both conditions are met, and Test
Subject is Green and Yellow.

The second is that the creation of the contract does not flip the
switch, but that when the contract makes itself Public, this does
constitute a flip, making it Red and Green.

The third is that the switch always has one value and this is never
changed, causing it to be Blue and Red.


Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following

{This is a pledge entitled Test Subject. It can either be Blue or Green.
It can either be Red or Yellow. It is initially Blue and Red. It's
Disclosure is Public. When this contract's Disclosure is flipped, it
becomes Green. When this contract's Sentiment is flipped, it becomes
Yellow. Any player CAN terminate this contract by announcement.}


Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:

It seems that the only place in the Rules that would cause a switch that
has never been flipped to have a value is R2162p2s3:

      If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
      possible value, it comes to have its default value.

It seems, then, clear to me that both the Disclosure and Sentiment "come
to have" their default values, rather than being platonically created
with those values already in place.


      "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a
      given value.  "To become X" (where X is a possible value of
      exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to

This makes it clear that flipping is synonymous with coming to have a
value, rather than a means of attaining as much. Thus, any event in
which a switch "comes to have" a value -- in particular, when a newly
created switch "comes to have" its default value -- is a flipping of
that switch.

I therefore believe that Test Subject is Green and Yellow, and that both
CFJs should be ruled TRUE.


Judge ais523's Arguments:

>From R2162:
      At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one
      possible value for that type of switch.  If an instance of a
      switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.
      If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
      possible value, it comes to have its default value.
So, switches have a set of possible values; instances of a switch have
one of those values. R2162 requires an instance of a switch to have
exactly one value at a time; it also specifies rules for what to
(platonically) do if it is platonically violated. Note that nowhere does
R2162 state that anything in particular happens to a switch which
already happens to have exactly one valid value; in particular, if a
switch is created with exactly one valid value already, it's complying
with the state of affairs envisioned in R2162 already, and R2162 doesn't
need to change it.

coppro is right in that R2162 does not specify any way for a switch that
has never been flipped to have a non-default value. However, nothing
forces such a specification to be in R2162; Agora has 133 other rules,
and it's entirely possible that one of those could specify a means
instead. In fact, such a mechanism can be found in R2198:
      If a contract states that one or more of its switches have
      certain values, then they do.
Therefore, a contract claiming to be public is public, unless something
conflicts with this section of R2198 somehow. R2162 does not conflict;
the creation of a public contract (i.e. a contract whose Disclosure has
the value 'Public') is completely in accordance with R2162, because it
describes a switch with exactly one value. Test Subject explicitly
states that its Disclosure is Public; there is no conflict anywhere with
the concept that it was never Private, and therefore I judge CFJ 2558
FALSE. (As a side note, and another way to reach the same conclusion:
Test Subject is a pledge; a pledge is not a contract unless it is
public; disclosure is a contract switch; therefore, if a pledge has a
disclosure, its disclosure must be Public, because it is platonically
incapable of being Private.)