After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the
replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying
prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and
forward.

Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely:

> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> It is not unusual to infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the
> rules never directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A
> Call for Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they
> are associated with statements, can be judged, etc. I believe this is
> supported by Rule 217's instruction to use common sense.
>
> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> concept of ratification:
>
> Rule 1551 says:
>
> > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
> > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
>
> Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of
> several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the
> number of voters indicated", etc.
>
> In both cases, the rules talk about ratifying facts about the past.
> Ratification involves a hypothetical gamestate minimally modified to
> make these facts about the past true, which clarifies for us that the
> definition of gamestate includes facts about the past. It also seems
> likely that the new gamestate after the ratification is intended to
> include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at
> the same clarification.


On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:24, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:
>
> > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
> >
> > Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using
> > anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us
> > augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to
> > infer meanings of terms in this way.  For example, the rules never
> > directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for
> > Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are
> > associated with statements, can be judged, etc.
> >
> > In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> > gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> > concept of ratification:
>
> I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to
> be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger
> argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about
> properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the
> definition.
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
> > this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
> > >
> > > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> > >
> > > You write in 7A:
> > > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> > >
> > > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> > > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> > > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> > >
> > > Jason Cobb
> > > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > the next couple of days.
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > >
> > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > >
> > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > ============
> > > >
> > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > everything here.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > =====================================
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > >
> > > >    The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has > > > > 0
> > > >    blots.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > >
> > > >    D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to 
> > > > ratify
> > > >    it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > >
> > > >    { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > > >    have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > >
> > > >    Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > >    Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > >
> > > >    There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > > >    Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > > >    the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > >
> > > >    D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > > >    weekly reports:
> > > >
> > > >    {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > > >    recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > > >    switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > > >    value.}
> > > >
> > > >    {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > > >    recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > > >    switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> > > value.}
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > > >
> > > >    omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > >    information in the above reports.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > > >
> > > >    D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > > >    behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > > >    pointed".
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > > >
> > > >    Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand 
> > > > of
> > > >    Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following 
> > > > message:
> > > >
> > > >    > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> > > in the
> > > >    > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> > > good of
> > > >    > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > > >    > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> > > cause any
> > > >    > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> > > of the
> > > >    > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> > > though,
> > > >    > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> > > consider and
> > > >    > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> > > >    >
> > > >    > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> > > D.
> > > >    > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> > > required
> > > >    > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > > >    > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-26 22:50
> > > >
> > > >    D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> > > >    ratify.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-27 14:11
> > > >
> > > >    D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-27 19:58
> > > >
> > > >    Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > > > ==================================================
> > > >
> > > > It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> > > > have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> > > > by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> > > > Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
> > > > of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> > > > INEFFECTIVE if...").
> > > >
> > > > Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
> > > >
> > > > The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
> > > > the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing
> > > > the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is
> > > > copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However,
> > > > Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information
> > > > in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition
> > > > 1 does not trigger.
> > > >
> > > > Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531:
> > > >
> > > > The officer reports were false at the time they were published. For
> > > > example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that many
> > > > players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long since
> > > > self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims no
> > > > Spaceships exist.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent reports,
> > > > D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking action, so these two conditions do
> > > > not apply.
> > > >
> > > > Conditions 4 through 8 are straightforward.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, if D. Margaux's document and reports were never ratified, the
> > > > attempted imposition would have been EFFECTIVE, and D. Margaux would
> > > > have blots.
> > > >
> > > > 4. The timeline hypothesized by rule 1551
> > > > =========================================
> > > >
> > > > When D. Margaux ratified eir document on May 26, according to Rule 1551,
> > > > the gamestate was "modified to what it would be if, at the time the
> > > > ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally
> > > > modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as
> > > > possible".
> > > >
> > > > (D. Margaux specified 2019-05-20 00:00 GMT as being the time the
> > > > document was true, but since the time was not part of the document
> > > > itself, it does trigger Rule 1551's clause "if the document explicitly
> > > > specifies a different past time...". Anyway, I think the document was
> > > > published close enough to that time that the effect is the same.)
> > > >
> > > > To understand how Rule 1551 modified the gamestate, the first step is to
> > > > understand the minimal modification that is hypothetically applied at
> > > > the time the document was published. This minimal modification is clear:
> > > > all switches created directly by the Politics and Spaaace Rules are
> > > > modified to be at their default values, and all entities and switches
> > > > created by the Clork or Astronomor according to those respective Rules
> > > > are removed so that they do not exist in the minimally modified
> > > > gamestate.
> > > >
> > > > Having understood the hypothetical minimal modification, the next step
> > > > is to understand what would have happened from that point in time
> > > > onward. We end up with the following timeline:
> > > >
> > > > * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
> > > > * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > >    information in those reports.
> > > > * D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the investigation.
> > > > * Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the attempt is
> > > >    INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules.
> > > >
> > > > In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3726
> > > > would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was INEFFECTIVE, and
> > > > the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well, since D.
> > > > Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee report,
> > > > which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called.
> > > >
> > > > 5. The gamestate after ratification
> > > > ===================================
> > > >
> > > > After D. Margaux ratified eir document, the gamestate was modified to
> > > > what it would be in the hypothetical timeline above. Our task now is to
> > > > determine how that modification affects the value of the two CFJs.
> > > >
> > > > I think it is clear that blot holdings are part of the gamestate. For
> > > > one thing, they only exist because the game defines em, and are part of
> > > > the state that we keep track of, so the terms "game" and "state" fit.
> > > > For another, blots are an asset tracked by some recordkeepor (the
> > > > Referee), and Rule 2166 states that the portion of a recordkeepor's
> > > > report that lists assets is self-ratifying, which wouldn't mean much if
> > > > such assets weren't part of the gamestate. Therefore at the end of this
> > > > message I will judge 3727 FALSE.
> > > >
> > > > The harder question is whether the change to the gamestate affects CFJ
> > > > 3726. I believe it comes down to this question:
> > > >
> > > >     Does the gamestate include information about past events, such as
> > > >     whether the attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice was
> > > >     effective, and is CFJ 3726 referring to the information contained in
> > > >     the gamestate?
> > > >
> > > > If the answers are no, then CFJ 3726 should be judged TRUE, as argued in
> > > > Section 3 above. If the answers are yes, then CFJ 3726 should be judged
> > > > FALSE, according to the timeline described in Section 4.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
> > > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
> > > > be doubt about this.
> > > >
> > > > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
> > > > =================================================
> > > >
> > > > When the rules talk about a concept that isn't defined by the rules,
> > > > we generally assume they're referring to the concept in reality. For
> > > > example, the rules don't define what a message is, and they don't define
> > > > the meaning of fundamental words like "is", "for", etc.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore it's natural to assume that when the rules discuss what "was",
> > > > they are referring to past events. I think it's defensible to assume
> > > > that even if the past event being referred to is a legal fiction, the
> > > > rules are referring to what the Rules had to say about the legal fiction
> > > > in the past, rather than some new legal fiction the Rules currently
> > > > define about the past.
> > > >
> > > > To instead say that whenever the Rules refer to the past, they are
> > > > referring to some fictitious past defined by the rules, could be said to
> > > > be a very drastic statement, requiring strong evidence to back it up.
> > > >
> > > > 7. The past is part of the gamestate
> > > > ====================================
> > > >
> > > > However, I think sufficient evidence does exist to say the gamestate
> > > > contains information about past actions, and that the Rules refer to the
> > > > gamestate when they talk about the past.
> > > >
> > > > 7A. The text of the rules
> > > > =========================
> > > >
> > > > In two places, the text of the Rules seem to imply that the past is part
> > > > of the gamestate:
> > > >
> > > > Rule 1551 says:
> > > >
> > > >> Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
> > > >> report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
> > > > Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of
> > > > several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the
> > > > number of voters indicated", etc.
> > > >
> > > > In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > > > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > > > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense. The
> > > > gamestate couldn't be "minimally modified" to make these statements
> > > > true in the hypothetical timeline described by Rule 1551, and after the
> > > > ratification, the modified facts about the past, not being part of the
> > > > gamestate, would not be.
> > > >
> > > > 7B. Past judgements about judgements about the past
> > > > ===================================================
> > > >
> > > > Rule 217 instructs us that when the text of the rules is silent,
> > > > inconsistent or unclear, we should augment it with past judgements
> > > > (among other things).
> > > >
> > > > omd pointed out that the judgement CFJ 3337 [0] relied on
> > > > past events being part of the gamestate. Judge G.'s judgement of that 
> > > > CFJ
> > > > relied on the assertion that after a document stating the past date of a
> > > > player's registration was ratified, that player became eligible to vote
> > > > in a decision they otherwise would not have been eligible for, because
> > > > the text of the ratified document implied that they were registered at
> > > > the start of the voting period.
> > > >
> > > > The judgement of CFJ 2491 [1] also relied on precedent being part of the
> > > > game state: Judge Yally's judgement was that since a document was
> > > > ratified implying that Rodlen became an officer sufficiently long ago
> > > > for em to be awarded a green ribbon, e should be awarded a green ribbon.
> > > >
> > > > Both of these judgements support the conclusion that the past is part of
> > > > the gamestate.
> > > >
> > > > 7C. The best interests of the game
> > > > ==================================
> > > >
> > > > Rule 217 also instructs us to consider the best interests of the game.
> > > >
> > > > Generally, the purpose of gamestate changes such as the effect of
> > > > ratification is to clarify the current situation in the game in order to
> > > > allow play to continue smoothly. Consider the following examples where
> > > > rules make actions possible or required depending on what happened in
> > > > the past:
> > > >
> > > > * Rule 2555: "If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any
> > > >    blots from emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot
> > > >    from emself by announcement."
> > > >
> > > > * Rule 2496: Whether a player can earn a reward depends on whether they
> > > >    have fulfilled the condition in the past 7 days, and also on whether 
> > > > e
> > > >    has already claimed that reward.
> > > >
> > > > * Many rules allow or require a player to take an action "in a timely
> > > >    fashion" after a past event.
> > > >
> > > > When a ratification event clarifies the current situation in the game,
> > > > it would be helpful if the above examples are among the things that are
> > > > clarified. For example, after ratification of a document implying
> > > > whether or not a player has gained blots in the current week, that
> > > > player can confidently know whether they are able to expunge a blot. All
> > > > other things being equal, I think it is in the best interests of the
> > > > game if ratification clarifies these examples.
> > > >
> > > > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> > > > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> > > > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
> > > >
> > > > We could at this point try to pick and choose just those elements of the
> > > > past are directly relevant: e.g. since D. Margaux didn't have any blots
> > > > to begin with, CFJ 3726 is not relevant to whether e can expunge any
> > > > blots, so CFJ 3726 may not matter to the best interests of the game. But
> > > > I think that would be overcomplicating things. If the gamestate includes
> > > > the effectiveness of some past actions, it is natural to assume it
> > > > includes the effectiveness of all of them.
> > > >
> > > > 8. It depends on what the meaning of the word "was" was
> > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > > > There's still a question of interpreting CFJ 3726 itself. I have
> > > > concluded that when the Rules refer to the effectiveness of past
> > > > actions, they are referring to information in the gamestate about the
> > > > past. But CFJ 3726 is not a rule. What does "was effective" mean in the
> > > > statement in CFJ 3726?
> > > >
> > > > Rule 591 has guidance on delivering judgements:
> > > >
> > > >> The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
> > > >> the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
> > > >> initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
> > > >>
> > > >> * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > >>    logically false
> > > >>
> > > >> * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > >>    logically true
> > > > I believe "legal situation" means I should base my decision on what the
> > > > rules say. Moreover, the CFJ process is more useful if judgements on
> > > > statements agree with what the rules say about those statements.
> > > >
> > > > So, I will interpret "was effective" as referring to information about
> > > > the past contained in the gamestate.
> > > >
> > > > 9. Judgement
> > > > ============
> > > >
> > > > I judge CFJ 3726 FALSE.
> > > > I judge CFJ 3727 FALSE.
> > > >
> > > > [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
> > > > [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2491
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> > >
> > >

Reply via email to