On 6/16/2020 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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/
-Aris
Major props on even considering coming up with something like that. My
brain melts just thinking about it.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
