I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol

It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"



On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> 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