On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > Clearly, in the hypothetical inside the CFJ, the statement "ais523 > violated/is currently violating the power-2 rule 2230, committing the > Class-4 Crime of Libel, by publishing this NoV." is messy, thus > incorrect.
First of all, I think this NoV is straight-out incorrect, as it alleges that Rule 2230 "was... broken", which is incorrect; at best you would be currently violating it. But ignoring this... > Therefore, the NoV as a whole is correct, when analysed in a > top-down fashion as rule 2319 requires (as it contains a correct > allegation). Thus, in this hypothetical situation I haven't actually > violated rule 2230, even though I can correctly NoV myself for having > violated it! The only conclusion I can see here is that I've > simultaneously violated and not violated rule 2230. (This sort of thing > can be expected, given that rule 2319 attempts to defy the normal rules > of logic.) There's no inherent paradox here. It *does* try to defy the normal rules of logic, and define "correct" as something contradicting the ordinary language meaning, in order to allow the essentially dangerous situation that the gamestate (in this case, legality of actions) depends on the truthfulness of arbitrary player-supplied statements. However, I'm not convinced that there isn't still a way to make Rule 2319 paradoxical (but it ought to be hard because of the "top-down" part). But in this case, you wouldn't have violated Rule 2230, despite being able to legally NoV yourself for violating it; if contested, a criminal case would have to come out INNOCENT. Weird, but not paradoxical. > For bonus points, work out whether that hypothetical situation would > violate rule 2215. Since the statement is that you publish a NoV, and that is indisputably "thereby effective", it wouldn't violate Rule 2215 unless you believed that the NoV was INVALID.
