On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 23:36, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
> > > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so
> > even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the
> > pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be
> > DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know
> > whether the report is accurate.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
>
> Yeah, I agree that it's a bit weak as paradoxes go. The reason I did it with
> pledges is that a conditional _action_ ("if and only if the CFJ statement is
> FALSE, I [move my Spaceship]") would simply have failed, per the precedent in
> CFJ 1215.
>
> As far as the timing of the CFJ goes, I don't believe it matters when the
> pledges were made. The "legal situation at the time the [CFJ] was initiated"
> already explicitly depends on the gamestate on Judgement Day, because that
> gamestate determines whether it was POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE to levy the fine
> for inaccurately reporting it. All the pledges do is provide evidence about
> what the gamestate will be. I concede that they are not as convincing as if I
> actually had conditionally performed the actions, but again, I don't think
> that would work. So this is my best shot, and it may miss, but at least I
> tried.
>
> Another possible interpretation is that the judge has to take into account
> the legal situation at the time the CFJ was initiated, but *also* must not
> take into account the future gamestate. I don't think it's possible to do
> both of those things at once... so I'm not sure how Rule 591 would operate.
> Perhaps _none_ of the given options would be valid, not even DISMISS?
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> I'm reminded of CFJ 3737, which Trigon recused emself from because it was
> ILLEGAL to judge it correctly. That was a fun case.
>
> -twg
With your second interpretation, DISMISS seems valid, since R591 says
it's "appropriate if ...the statement is otherwise not able to be
answered with another valid judgement". If that's correct, I find this
interpretation appealing since it seems consistent with the use of
DISMISS for situations where "insufficient information exists", even
if it turns out that's not the legal reason to use DISMISS in this
case.
--
- Falsifian
