For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and doshes 
aren't rules defined or described, so don't have anything to do with earning
shinies, so whether someone distimmed eir doshes is irrelevant to the state of
shinies.

IRRELEVANT is also appropriate for your first assertion in that judgement:
if you say "we can't know until the auction is over because other things 
might happen" then the question is "overly hypothetical" which is a specific
use for IRRELEVANT.  (IRRELEVANT is really a special case of DISMISS:
"overly hypothetical" is a special case of "insufficient information" - so
DISMISS is just fine as a judgement even if it's not absolutely precise).

An "Invalid bid" is a bit different, because you can in a common-sense way
define what is meant by that: e.g. "a clear attempt to bid using language
in the rules for bids and numbers" and adjudicate on whether the bid was
in fact a bid.  But as I said, it's a fine line and others might put 
"invalid bids" into the same bucket as doshes (though I don't think doshes
fit in buckets).

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam 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