this entire game operates under basic norms that enshrine a set of fundamental premises. even i\f these premises are contestable, we all agree to uphold them for the purpose of a commonly constructed game. among those premises is that text is almost always unambiguous and has a shared and objective meaning and that we ought to follow the rules. of course it's possible to make good arguments about the nature of ambiguity, or good arguments that we ought not to follow the rules. but making those arguments isn't fun and it isn't useful - just like asking why monopoly shouldn't be played under chess rules in the middle of a game of monopoly On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:57 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> Is that your *interpretation* of it? > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 3:37 PM Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I CFJ the following: > > > > > > "Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ, the entirety of the Ruleset > > > means the following: > > > > > > This is the Ruleset for the game of Agora nomic, and X is the sole > player > > > of this game. X can change the Ruleset in any manner they desire by > > > publishing a sufficiently clear message detailing such changes to an > > Agoran > > > mailing list." > > > > > > > The reason this doesn't work is because CFJs have no legal force > whatsoever > > under the ruleset - CFJs are just persuasive interpretations that are de > > facto but not de jure binding. > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
