If CFJ 7 is open, I exercise certiorari to assign it to myself. -Aris
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < [email protected]> wrote: > > I recuse the judge of CFJ 7 from CFJ 7 (note: this may do nothing). > > I assign CFJ 7 to Jason. > > ================================ CFJ 7 ================================= > > Because of Rule 111, Rule 112 takes precedence over Rule 219. > Therefore, Rule 219 has no legal force. > > ========================================================================== > > Caller: Wes > > Judge: Jason > > ========================================================================== > > History: > > Called by Wes: 05 Aug 1993 22:26:27 > Assigned to Jason: [now] > > ========================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by G. (written in March 2020): > > Around March 1 2020, the full text case log for CFJ 7 from the CotC > archives appeared as follows: > > > Call for Judgement from Wes (Thu Aug 5 22:26:27 GMT 1993) > > > > "Because of Rule 111, Rule 112 takes precedence over Rule > > 219. Therefore, Rule 219 has no legal force." > > > > { This CFJ was never judged.} > (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExA.txt) > > In a separate CFJ, I will present arguments for the current (March 2020) > existence and status of CFJ 7. I hope and humbly request that the judge > here not concern emself those issues, and instead focus on a resolution of > the actual matter of dispute raised by Wes in 1993. > > Further, it would be trivial (under the current rules) to judge this case > IRRELEVANT (due to it being long in the past), or DISMISS for lacking > information of the state of the game in 1993. It would be hard to argue > against the right of a judge to deliver such a judgement. However, I urge > the judge to decide between TRUE and FALSE, and in doing so, finally lay > this 26+ year old matter to rest. > > I make this request for the following reasons: > > First, the information required to judge this case is available. We don’t > know the exact ruleset on August 5, 1993. However, Zefram’s archives have > two ruleset versions that bracket this time reasonably closely: > > Initial ruleset, dated June 30, 1993 > Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/chuck0_nr_19930630.txt > In evidence as: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExB.txt > > Ruleset dated August 28, 1993 > Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/usenet0_nr_19930828.txt > In evidence as: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExC.txt > > An examination of these two rulesets shows that the rules in question in > the statement (111, 112, and 219) did not change during this period; > further an examination of two rulesets suggests that other supporting > rules on precedence, etc. were relatively unchanged. Therefore, the > ruleset to use for judging is relatively clear. > > Second, the context for the case is clean. The case involves the > resolution of a direct and straightforward conflict between initial rules. > This was very early in the life of Agora, and none of the prior CFJs (1-6) > touch on the rules involved here. Therefore, this case provides a unique > opportunity for a “pure rules” adjudication, made free of the weight of > judicial precedent, game custom, or similar historical clouding of the > issue. > > Third, I believe that TRUE and FALSE are the only 100% consistent > judgement options for the duration of the game. In terms of alternatives > to TRUE/FALSE, the initial rules included UNDECIDED; in 1995 this was > changed to UNDECIDABLE and UNKNOWN, then later DISMISS was the only > choice. Choices proliferated in 2006/2007 (including IRRELEVANT), then in > 2014 we cut back again to DISMISS only, before moving to what we have > today. In 2007, Proposal 5371 > ( > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-August/003161.html > ) > actively replaced some judgements with others with this clause: > * For each pre-reform CFJ with an unappealed judgement, the > post-reform inquiry case has a judgement assigned to its question on > veracity, according to this translation: > + Pre-reform FALSE judgement corresponds to post-reform FALSE. > + Pre-reform TRUE judgement corresponds to post-reform TRUE. > + Any other pre-reform judgement corresponds to post-reform > UNDETERMINED. > > But this was after several of the changes in valid judgement types > mentioned above (for which full proposal texts are unavailable), so it is > not clear whether these past alternatives to TRUE/FALSE hold up today or > transitioned through different rule versions. Throughout it all, TRUE > and FALSE have been consistent. Given the uncertainty on other judgements > over time, I hope that either TRUE or FALSE can be determined. > > Finally, I ask the judge to think of Wes, submitting this matter of > controversy on August 5, 1993, likely with the reasonable expectation that > the controversy would thereby be resolved. It’s time to end eir wait of > 9,723+ days, and finally and fully resolve the pressing matter at hand. > > ========================================================================== >
