But yeah its a fuzzy line tbh. I can see your line of reasoning, it's like
one of those illusions where you can force your eye to make the ballerina
seem to rotate one way or the other.

I just wanted to mention that below lol because my head would feel
constipated otherwise and I think its a cool share : P.


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting,
> assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect
> it would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn
> a Shiny?"
>
> So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a shiny"
>
> However, didn't we kick out of play considering "distimming the doshes"?
> How could you use Modus Ponens on something like that? I can't process it
> because it relies on something out of play! If I answered TRUE or FALSE to
> that, it would be assumed that it CAN BE either one, but for that to even
> be able to happen it needs to be considered for play!
>
> Imagine if instead of "Distimming the doshes", it was a literal image of a
> potato. "[Literal image of a potato], therefore, he earned a Shiny".
>
> Put a different way, if I gave "Did the distimming of the doshes per se
> make him earn a Shiny?" a Judgement of FALSE, that means that "Did he
> distim the doshes?" isn't clogging the processing of logic because it's
> considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it
> could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not actually
> Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?" is DISMISS!
>
> So, the statement of " Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him
> earn a Shiny?" is also DISMISS (I assume).
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!
>>
>> I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend
>> to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so
>> an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga
>> boogas
>> that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has
>> some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning
>> "if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.
>>
>> But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
>> your way is fine too...
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it
>> necessary.
>> >
>> > (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
>> > statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
>> > doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
>> > it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
>> > statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
>> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've
>> been
>> > much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the
>> first
>> > place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At
>> least,
>> > that's how I see it.)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
>> > > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
>> > > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still
>> in
>> > > > place, it would have won."
>> > > >
>> > > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I
>> fully
>> > > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the
>> idea
>> > > -
>> > > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give
>> it.
>> > > >
>> > > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling
>> it
>> > > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What
>> if
>> > > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at
>> any
>> > > > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by
>> > > announcement.
>> > > > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would
>> cease to
>> > > be
>> > > > such.
>> > > >
>> > > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a
>> judgement, the
>> > > > verdict is DISMISS.
>> > > >
>> > > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a
>> bid in
>> > > > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
>> > > >
>> > > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate,
>> because then
>> > > > this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
>> > > >
>> > > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the
>> first
>> > > > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate,
>> unfortunately.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which
>> > > gives
>> > > > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 (
>> > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I
>> will
>> > > give
>> > > > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what
>> this
>> > > CFJ
>> > > > is about.
>> > > >
>> > > > VERDICT: DISMISS
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Reply via email to