Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 5/31/2020 12:39 PM, grok wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:35 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 5/31/2020 12:29 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>> The below CFJ is 3837.  I assign it to grok.
>>>>
>>>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837
>>>>
>>>> ===============================  CFJ 3837
>> ===============================
>>>>
>>>>       Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
>>>>       has an article titled "Sponge".
>>>>
>>>>
>> ==========================================================================
>>>
>>> Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not
>> define a
>>> biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
>> either
>>> individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.
>>>
>>
>> Gratuitous:  A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to evaluate
>> this, we are required to consider a world in which a common subject like
>> "sponge" is not in Wikipedia.  A world like this might be strange in other
>> ways.  This is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical
>> extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually
>> exist" as defined for IRRELEVANT in R591.
>>
> 
> This CFJ will (unintentionally, I believe) test the decision options in the
> CFJ system. FALSE/DISMISS/IRRELEVANT all have different implications on the
> gamestate long term.
> 

So for context, it wasn't unintentional. Falsifian was purposefully seeing
if e could "entangle" an otherwise irrelevant fact into being relevant. I
can imagine reasonably cogent arguments for any of those three options, so
it's definitely within the judge's purview to opine on whether the
implications of one of them in particular is "better" for the long-term.
Here's the context:

Falsifian wrote:
> ais 523 wrote:
>> I think the best direction in this regard would be to allow CFJs that
>> are not relevant to Agora directly, with some payment to compensate
>> the judge for their time. "Agora as a ruleset interpretation service",
>> if you like. So Agora would act entirely in a fact-finding role, not in
>> any sort of enforcement role. (The person who commissioned Agora to
>> come to a judgement could then do what they wanted with the resulting
>> judgement and its reasoning.)
>
>
> I suspect it's already possible to use Agora's CFJ system for
> questions not directly relevant to Agora, by entangling the statement
> with a relevant question.
>
>
> CFJ: Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
> has an article titled "Sponge".