Three reasons that would be a bad judgment, which I would likely moot: 1. I'm paying for the CFJ, which means the judge will get paid for it. It wouldn't be very nice to take money and then assign an effectively null judgment.
2. The CFJ concerns a subject of deep game signifcance. If the rules directly disagree with reality, which one wins? I We've been assuming that the rules do, but I haven't seen a ruling on it. This is probably one of the most important philosophical questions in the history of the game, with many implications for how we play, and it shouldn't just be tossed out unconsidered. 3. We have something of a tradition of dealing with hypothetical situations even when they're unlikely to occur, particularly when they clarify the application of existing rules. See, for instance, CFJs 1147 (really strong precedent), 1887, etc. Admittedly we sometimes do the opposite, but it does support the other two. -Aris On Oct 20, 2017 7:00 PM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would judge IRRELEVANT: situation appears to be too hypothetical > and attenuated to be a useful clarification of the game state. > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or > >> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there > >> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy > >> the > >> universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I > >> announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of > >> the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the > >> game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I request that > >> the > >> judge consider the situation both with and without existing power 4 rules > >> (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the destruction of the universe in > >> this way would have practical effect upon the game. I also request that the > >> H. Arbitor link the cases and that they have a combined caselog. I'll > >> probably have more arguments later, and invite the arguments of others. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > > > Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic. > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
