Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions CAN intrinsically be performed by announcement, but it
is true that regulated actions CANNOT be performed except as the rules
explicitly permit. To put this another way, there may be nothing in the
rules that stops you from from flipping the judge switch by announcement,
but that doesn’t mean you CAN do so. For that would make sense, we’d need
to assume that you have the inherent power to alter arbitrary variables,
which doesn’t make sense.
However, there are some unregulated things you CAN do based on your
inherent power. The traditional example is the action of celebrating.
Saying “I celebrate” is a form of celebration, which makes celebrating a by
announcement action. This works because a) you can inherently do it *and*
b) it’s unregulated. If either of those things weren’t true, you’d be
unable to celebrate by announcement.
So, to explain this logically, what Murphy is trying to say is “If you can
perform an action by announcement, then either the rules allow it or it is
unregulated.” You’re drawing the conclusion that “since this action is
unregulated, you can perform it by announcement”. The logical structure of
your conclusion is:
{
If A, then B or C (Murphy’s statement; if you can perform an action by
announcement, then either that action is permitted by the rules or
unregulated)
B or C (your premise; this action is either unregulated or permitted by the
rules, because by your logic it isn’t regulated)
Therefore A (your conclusion)
}
Which is basically:
{
If A, then B
B
Therefore A.
}
That’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
I think the problem is that you’re taking “only works if” in Murphy’s
original text and turning it into “works if and only if” or perhaps even
“works if”.
Also, I’m sorry if I’ve overexplained this, I’m just not sure which of
these explanations will be the most intuitive for you.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:16 PM Jason Cobb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does this happen to be the thread
> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg46478.html
> ?
>
> If so, what ais523 seems to be saying (please forgive me if I
> misunderstand) is what the Rules state about specifically regulated
> actions. Obviously (well, maybe not so obviously given all the
> controversy around this CFJ) I am physically able to breathe even if the
> Rules do not give me a mechanism to do so.
>
> As further evidence I cite Murphy's (old?) website at
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php , which defines ISIDTID as
>
> > I say I do, therefore I do. ("I perform (action)" only works if the
> > rules enable it, or if the action is unregulated. See Rule 478 for the
> > definition of performing an action "by announcement", and Rule 2125
> > for the definition of regulation.)
>
> (it even gets the Rule numbers right). If this is true (and I don't know
> if it is or ever was), then it would seem to imply that I could flip
> that switch by announcement.
>
> I will, of course, defer to people who have more experience than me in
> these matters. I do certainly agree that, for regulated actions, ISIDTID
> is certainly a fallacy by Rule 2125. I just can't provide a fully
> informed comment on ISIDTID for unregulated actions.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 8:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the
> switch
> > to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is
> the
> > "I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
> > this list recently.
> >
> > If I understand right, the only reason to describe regulated actions is
> to
> > cover the case when an action has an ordinary-language meaning as well
> as a
> > rule-defined one. For example, I tried to Declare Apathy by just
> declaring
> > "Apathy" in a message, and if I remember right, regulated actions are the
> > main reason it didn't work.
> >
> > On Fri., Jun. 21, 2019, 08:59 Jason Cobb, <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
> >> things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
> >>
> >> - If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
> >> "actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
> >> Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
> >> Suspension.
> >>
> >> - The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
> >> for different people.
> >>
> >> I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
> >> say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me, even if the
> >> Rules says something about a different person performing the action (as
> >> long as no player is required to be a recordkeepor of something the
> >> action would change).
> >>
> >> One such action is the assigning of judges to CFJs. Judge is
> >> specifically an untracked CFJ switch, thus no player is "required to be
> >> the recordkeepor" (assuming CFJ 3740 comes out TRUE or otherwise affirms
> >> this statement). Assume that I create a CFJ, let it be CJF X.
> >>
> >> Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgment") reads:
> >>
> >> When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
> >> eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
> >> in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as
> judge
> >> are all active players except the initiator and the person
> barred
> >> (if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that
> all
> >> interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
> >> If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
> judge
> >> that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
> >>
> >> This Rule does not impose requirements on me changing the judge of CFJ
> >> X. It instead regulates assigning the CFJ for the Arbitor (who is not
> >> me) and for "any player eligible to judge that CFJ", which is a
> >> description that I do not fulfill.
> >>
> >> Specifically, here is my reasoning:
> >>
> >> - If doing the same thing is a different "action" for each different
> >> performer, then the Rules only explicitly regulate the the Arbitor
> >> flipping the judge switch and "any player eligible to judge [CFJ X]"
> >> flipping the judge siwtch. Me flipping the judge switch of CFJ X would
> >> be a completely different action, and thus not regulated by the Rules,
> >> and thus the Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe me flipping
> >> that switch.
> >>
> >> - If the regulated actions clause regulates different sets of actions of
> >> different people, then there is no wording that explicitly causes it to
> >> be regulated for me. Just like there is no wording that specifically
> >> causes (otherwise unregulated) actions that would violate contracts to
> >> which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of
> >> the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules
> >> SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it.
> >>
> >>
> >> I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because,
> >> otherwise, this is a disturbing precedent. Please tell me if you can see
> >> something.
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> On 6/21/19 9:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >>> I issue the below judgement and claim a reward of 5 coins for issuing
> it.
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be
> >> entered in this CFJ.[1] I was subsequently assigned to judge it.
> >>> Judge Trigon believed that no LEGAL judgement could be assigned to this
> >> case for reasons explained in an email chain reproduced in a footnote
> >> here.[2] Judge Trigon's recusal was premised on eir belief that an
> action
> >> does not necessarily become regulated when a contract states that it
> "SHALL
> >> NOT" be performed.
> >>> After much consideration, I disagree with that conclusion, and instead
> >> agree with contrary arguements offered by R. Lee and others. In
> particular,
> >> an action is regulated if its "performance" is "limited" by Rule. A
> >> "limitation" on "performance" does not necessarily mean a limitation on
> the
> >> *possibility* of performance of the action. Instead, it can also refer
> to a
> >> limitation on the LEGALLY of the performance of the action.
> >>> In this CFJ, a hypothetical contract would forbids parties from
> >> breathing, and the rules would prohibit a party from violating that
> >> contract. The rules would therefore forbid a party to the contract from
> >> breathing (but not anyone else). The contract at issue, and the rules
> that
> >> create contracts generally, have limited the LEGAL performance of
> breathing
> >> when done by a party to the hypothetical contract. As a result, the act
> of
> >> breathing would be regulated when taken by a party to the contract.
> >>> That said, the contract cannot affect the LEGALITY or POSSIBILITY of an
> >> action taken by a non-party. As a result, the contract would not limit
> >> breathing by non-parties. Breathing by other people generally would
> not be
> >> limited in any way, only breathing by parties to the contract.
> Therefore it
> >> is FALSE that breathing generally would be regulated; only breathing by
> >> certain people.
> >>> FALSE
> >>> -----
> >>> [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message.
> >>>> On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL
> >> way to resolve this.
> >>> [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here:
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow,
> >> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract
> does
> >> not limit its performance.
> >>>> The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a
> >> dictionary to prove such things.
> >>>> To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which
> >> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
> >>>>> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>>>> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a
> crime).
> >> Either
> >>>>> - Breathing is a regulated action, or
> >>>>> - The contract does not prohibit breathing.
> >>>>> Jason Cobb
> >>>>>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>>>>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated
> >> actions.
> >>>>>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an
> >> unregulated action.
> >>>>>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct
> conclusion
> >> that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule
> >> 2152.
> >>>>>> There really is no way out of this, is there?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate
> >> that, assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN
> >> perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
> >>>>>>> From the dictionary I get:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Proscribe -
> >>>>>>> forbid, especially by law.
> >>>>>>> synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo,
> >> veto,
> >>>>>>> make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
> >>>>>>> "gambling was proscribed"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for
> >> SHALL
> >>>>>>> NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense
> to
> >> me.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Trigon
>
