I intend to register and prefer this case as soon as I have time to figure out how to do that.
(Apologies for top-posting again but I am in a hurry at the moment.) On Wed., Jan. 1, 2020, 02:06 Aris Merchant, < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 18:59, Aris Merchant >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >> > document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >> > ~~~ >> > Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 >> > >> > At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >> > agora-business became discussion fora. >> > ~~~ >> > >> > I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >> > document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >> > ~~~ >> > Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 >> > >> > At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >> > agora-business became public fora. >> > ~~~ >> > >> > I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying the >> > other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect, >> > but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages >> > failed to be public under CFJ 1905. >> >> I object to both intents. >> >> Sorry to prolong this, but I'm not convinced this gets around Ørjan's >> objection. Here are two modifications to the gamestate that could be >> made at 00:15:01 on Dec 14 that would make the first document true: >> >> a) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become >> discussion fora. Flip both publicity switches to Discussion. >> >> b) Insert four events into the historical record: a-o and a-b became >> discussion fora, then immediately after, became Public fora again. >> >> Both of these involve four changes (either two additions to history >> plus two changes to Publicity switches, or four additions to history). >> The first one is what we intend, but I'm not confident that it is the >> unique minimal modification. >> >> Is there anything wrong with passing a proposals that says "Change the >> gamestate to what it would be if a-b and a-o's publicity had been >> switched to Discussion at time X and then switched back to Public at >> time Y, so that none of the intervening messages on either list were >> sent via a public forum"? >> >> Alternatively, I wouldn't be averse to just fixing the uncertainties >> one by one. I don't think there are that many. A few Master switches, >> some income earned, the state of the PM election, and whether a >> proposal was distributed. Anything else? >> >> -- > > > > *Sigh.* I see your point, but I’m not buying it. > > I CFJ, barring Falsifian, the claim “If the two documents quoted above > were ratified, the first one would have the effect of modifying the > historical record twice and the publicity switches of the relevant fora > twice, in the manner stated as interpretation a above.” > > Arguments: > The relevant paragraph of rule 1551: > “When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified, rules > to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it > would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the > gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as > true and accurate as possible; however, if the document explicitly > specifies a different past time as being the time the document was true, > the specified time is used to determine the minimal modifications. Such a > modification cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the > rules, and it cannot include rule changes unless the ratified document > explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting > properties of the rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or > multiple substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally > appropriate, > the ratification fails.” > > I don’t think any reasonable reader would say that the minimal change > necessary to make a document true involves inserting a change cancelling > out any changes made by the document. That’s simply not what minimal change > means in natural language. Also, if there is any interpretation in which > this view is correct, the best interests of the game and common sense > mandate that it be selected. > > End arguments. > > I request expedited assignment for this case. I pledge the Arbitor 5 coins > if e assigns this case within 2 days. I pledge the first judge of this case > 5 coins if e judges it within 2 days of it being assigned to em. > > -Aris >
_______________________________________________ Agora mailing list [email protected] https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
