On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:07 PM Aris Merchant < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>>>> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >>>>>> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be >> >>>>>> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition >> in >> >>>>>> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that >> this >> >>>>>> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should >> be >> >>>>>> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and >> its >> >>>>>> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where >> >>>>>> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This >> >> greatly >> >>>>> expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, >> >> greatly >> >>>>> reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common >> >> terms >> >>>>> that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they >> >> should >> >>>>> revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the >> >> rules. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. >> >>>>> What's the limit? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -G. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the >> >>>> point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the >> >>>> context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance >> >>>> of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning >> the >> >>>> definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common >> >>>> language definition. >> >> >> >> I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think >> >> there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by >> >> case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move >> >> to reconsider. >> > >> > Aris: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* >> > Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?" >> >> Controversial or not, if you're doing a "major review of past cases" I >> don't think we need to file a motion on this one, I think treating your >> case as a sort of appeals court and say "here's a handful of conflicting >> CFJs, the current standard is leading to disparate results so let's try a >> new standard" and not worry about re-hashing the past even if it's very >> recent. > > > Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll > take you advice. > > The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different > standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules that get > applied for cases involving non-English languages, one set for new jargon, > one set for interpreting rules, and so on. > > But all of these things are communications involving language. The problem > isn't the standards. Most of them are pretty good standards. It's that > there's no unifying logic behind all of them, even though they're all > addressing the same general area. I'm going to try to come up with unifying > logic. > > Then I'm going to use my unifying logic to produce a standard algorithm > for interpreting language in Agora. Afterwards, most of those standards > will be special cases of the standard algorithm, although some of them may > turn out to be inconsistent with it and get overturned. If I do it > correctly, I can also explain why my unifying logic and standard algorithm > have to be correct, rather than just saying "this seems reasonable, so > let's go with it". I pretty much have to, if I want to convince everyone to > switch over. > > This entire business reminds me vaguely of this [1]. Hopefully, I can > avoid that. We'll see how things work out. > > [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ > Just to add, there's still some chance I won't manage all of this. I'm going to try, and I have no clue whether I can get it done in time or not. We'll just have to see. -Aris
