Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:52 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
>>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
>>> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
>>> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I CFJ:
>>> > > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>>> named
>>> > "A
>>> > > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>>> > > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>>> was
>>> > a
>>> > > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
>>> > > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
>>> was
>>> > > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win
>>> the
>>> > > game}
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
>>> > > provide
>>> > > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below.
>>> And
>>> > the
>>> > > > CFJ
>>> > > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
>>> > looking
>>> > > > (I'm
>>> > > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact
>>> assigned,
>>> > so
>>> > > no
>>> > > > > need to look for that either)
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
>>> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>>> named "A
>>> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>>> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>>> was a
>>> > > "CFJ
>>> > > > about the legality or possibility of a game
>>> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
>>> was
>>> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be
>>> eligible
>>> > to
>>> > > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the
>>> rest of
>>> > > > these words are eirs not mine)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
>>> > > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would
>>> have
>>> > > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a
>>> couple
>>> > > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
>>> > change
>>> > > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ...
>>> increased
>>> > > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
>>> > succeeded
>>> > > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is
>>> definitely an
>>> > > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to
>>> "it
>>> > was
>>> > > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have
>>> happened?"
>>> > > I'd
>>> > > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
>>> > > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X
>>> happen".
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Arguments:
>>> > >
>>> > > There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game
>>> action. To
>>> > > see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX
>>> COULD
>>> > > do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved
>>> messing
>>> > > with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually
>>> *did*
>>> > so
>>> > > and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a
>>> question
>>> > > about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved
>>> unquestionably
>>> > had
>>> > > that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
>>> > > materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
>>> > > question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule
>>> > COULD
>>> > > have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to
>>> > figure
>>> > > out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
>>> > >
>>> > > Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
>>> > > depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule
>>> decided to
>>> > do
>>> > > something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a
>>> legality.
>>> > > However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably
>>> refers to
>>> > > the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't
>>> > clear
>>> > > enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given
>>> the
>>> > use
>>> > > of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and
>>> > permissibility
>>> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
>> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
>> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I CFJ:
>> > > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>> named
>> > "A
>> > > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>> > > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>> was
>> > a
>> > > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
>> > > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
>> was
>> > > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
>> > > game}
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
>> > > provide
>> > > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And
>> > the
>> > > > CFJ
>> > > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
>> > looking
>> > > > (I'm
>> > > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact
>> assigned,
>> > so
>> > > no
>> > > > > need to look for that either)
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
>> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>> named "A
>> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>> was a
>> > > "CFJ
>> > > > about the legality or possibility of a game
>> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
>> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be
>> eligible
>> > to
>> > > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
>> > > >
>> > > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest
>> of
>> > > > these words are eirs not mine)
>> > > >
>> > > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
>> > > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would
>> have
>> > > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a
>> couple
>> > > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
>> > change
>> > > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
>> > > >
>> > > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ...
>> increased
>> > > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
>> > succeeded
>> > > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is
>> definitely an
>> > > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to
>> "it
>> > was
>> > > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have
>> happened?"
>> > > I'd
>> > > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
>> > > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X
>> happen".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Arguments:
>> > >
>> > > There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action.
>> To
>> > > see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX
>> COULD
>> > > do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved
>> messing
>> > > with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually
>> *did*
>> > so
>> > > and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
>> > > about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved
>> unquestionably
>> > had
>> > > that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
>> > > materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
>> > > question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule
>> > COULD
>> > > have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to
>> > figure
>> > > out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
>> > >
>> > > Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
>> > > depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided
>> to
>> > do
>> > > something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a
>> legality.
>> > > However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers
>> to
>> > > the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't
>> > clear
>> > > enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given
>> the
>> > use
>> > > of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and
>> > permissibility
>> > > tend to go together.
>> > >
>> > > Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did
>> > happen
>> > > are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in
>> this
>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I CFJ:
> > > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named
> > "A
> > > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
> was
> > a
> > > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
> was
> > > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
> > > game}
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
> > > provide
> > > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And
> > the
> > > > CFJ
> > > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
> > looking
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned,
> > so
> > > no
> > > > > need to look for that either)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named
> "A
> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was
> a
> > > "CFJ
> > > > about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be
> eligible
> > to
> > > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
> > > >
> > > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest
> of
> > > > these words are eirs not mine)
> > > >
> > > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> > > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would
> have
> > > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a
> couple
> > > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
> > change
> > > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
> > > >
> > > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ...
> increased
> > > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
> > succeeded
> > > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely
> an
> > > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it
> > was
> > > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?"
> > > I'd
> > > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> > > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
> > >
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > >
> > > There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action.
> To
> > > see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX
> COULD
> > > do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved
> messing
> > > with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did*
> > so
> > > and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
> > > about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably
> > had
> > > that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
> > > materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
> > > question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule
> > COULD
> > > have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to
> > figure
> > > out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
> > >
> > > Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
> > > depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided
> to
> > do
> > > something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a
> legality.
> > > However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers
> to
> > > the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't
> > clear
> > > enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given the
> > use
> > > of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and
> > permissibility
> > > tend to go together.
> > >
> > > Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did
> > happen
> > > are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in
> this
> > > case, where one of the questions results in paradox and the other
> > doesn't.
> > > The rule could do everything that it might have done; the question of
> it
> > > actually did so is irresolvable
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I CFJ:
> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named
> "A
> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was
> a
> > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
> > game}
> > > >
> > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
> > provide
> > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And
> the
> > > CFJ
> > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
> looking
> > > (I'm
> > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned,
> so
> > no
> > > > need to look for that either)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> > "CFJ
> > > about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be eligible
> to
> > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
> > >
> > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest of
> > > these words are eirs not mine)
> > >
> > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have
> > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple
> > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
> change
> > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
> > >
> > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased
> > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
> succeeded
> > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an
> > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it
> was
> > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?"
> > I'd
> > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
> >
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. To
> > see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX COULD
> > do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved messing
> > with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did*
> so
> > and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
> > about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably
> had
> > that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
> > materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
> > question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule
> COULD
> > have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to
> figure
> > out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
> >
> > Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
> > depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided to
> do
> > something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a legality.
> > However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers to
> > the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't
> clear
> > enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given the
> use
> > of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and
> permissibility
> > tend to go together.
> >
> > Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did
> happen
> > are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in this
> > case, where one of the questions results in paradox and the other
> doesn't.
> > The rule could do everything that it might have done; the question of it
> > actually did so is irresolvable without paradox. I respectfully opine
> that
> > the court should rule FALSE.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
> This is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. The statement for CFJ
> 3828 was really three statements. If any were FALSE, the CFJ would be
> FALSE.
> 1: A recent rule called "A coin award" was enacted. For it to be enacted,
> it needs to have been
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > > I CFJ:
> > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
> game}
> > >
> > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
> provide
> > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And the
> > CFJ
> > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go looking
> > (I'm
> > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned, so
> no
> > > need to look for that either)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> "CFJ
> > about the legality or possibility of a game
> > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be eligible to
> > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
> >
> > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest of
> > these words are eirs not mine)
> >
> > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have
> > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple
> > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't change
> > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
> >
> > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased
> > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule succeeded
> > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an
> > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it was
> > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?"
> I'd
> > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. To
> see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX COULD
> do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved messing
> with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did* so
> and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
> about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably had
> that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
> materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
> question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule COULD
> have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to figure
> out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
>
> Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
> depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided to do
> something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a legality.
> However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers to
> the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't clear
> enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given the use
> of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and permissibility
> tend to go together.
>
> Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did happen
> are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in this
> case, where one of the questions results in paradox and the other doesn't.
> The rule could do everything that it might have done; the question of it
> actually did so is irresolvable without paradox. I respectfully opine that
> the court should rule FALSE.
>
> -Aris
>
This is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. The statement for CFJ
3828 was really three statements. If any were FALSE, the CFJ would be FALSE.
1: A recent rule called "A coin award" was enacted. For it to be enacted,
it needs to have been possible to enact this rule. Although the paradox
does not arise from this proposition, the proposition being present in the
CFJ still makes the CFJ "about" a possibility.
2: [The rule] increased the number of coins R. Lee owned by one. For this
to happen, it needs to have been POSSIBLE for the rule, with the specific
text as enacted, to
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> > I CFJ:
> > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the game}
> >
> > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to provide
> > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And the
> CFJ
> > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go looking
> (I'm
> > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned, so no
> > need to look for that either)
> >
>
>
> Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> coin award" was enacted, increased
> the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a "CFJ
> about the legality or possibility of a game
> action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be eligible to
> win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
>
> I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest of
> these words are eirs not mine)
>
> The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have
> been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple
> times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't change
> the fact that there's an action with an actor?
>
> Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased
> the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule succeeded
> in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an
> action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it was
> POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?" I'd
> personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
Arguments:
There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. To
see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX COULD
do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved messing
with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did* so
and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably had
that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule COULD
have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to figure
out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided to do
something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a legality.
However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers to
the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't clear
enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given the use
of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and permissibility
tend to go together.
Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did happen
are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in this
case, where one of the questions results in paradox and the other doesn't.
The rule could do everything that it might have done; the question of it
actually did so is irresolvable without paradox. I respectfully opine that
the court should rule FALSE.
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On 5/5/2020 7:04 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/5/20 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> I can see your point too and can think of some arguments in support of >> it... might be borderline enough for its own CFJ, or maybe up to the >> Herald whether it is or not...? > > And by that you mean whoever can deputise fastest. > Oh! sorry, missed the word 'temporarily' in your deputisation. Nice Transparent btw.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On 5/5/20 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: I can see your point too and can think of some arguments in support of it... might be borderline enough for its own CFJ, or maybe up to the Herald whether it is or not...? And by that you mean whoever can deputise fastest. -- Trigon, Speaker of Agora
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On 5/5/2020 6:30 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 19:03 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 5/5/20 6:45 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Rule 2553: “If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game >>> action” >>> >>> CFJ 3828: “A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased >>> the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” >>> >>> I think the CFJ statement is in the wrong form for a paradox win. You >>> would need to have asked about the possibility of, e.g., transferring a >>> number of coins equal to [the amount you would otherwise have held + 1] >>> to another player. >> >> I don't follow this line of reasoning. The CFJ was about a game action >> (those of a coin being given to "someone") and it was asking about the >> legal interpretation of the consequences of this coin award. To me, it >> seems like it fits the bill. > > How is it a game-defined action? It's something that could have been > done by the game rules, rather than something done by a player; and > whether or not it happened, the rule in question would have been > repealed at the time the CFJ was called (thus even if you count actions > performed by rules, the game would no longer be defining the action in > question). > > Perhaps we need a CFJ about what "action" means. > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't change the fact that there's an action with an actor? Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule succeeded in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it was POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?" I'd personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen". I can see your point too and can think of some arguments in support of it... might be borderline enough for its own CFJ, or maybe up to the Herald whether it is or not...?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On 5/5/20 7:30 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 19:03 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: How is it a game-defined action? It's something that could have been done by the game rules, rather than something done by a player; and whether or not it happened, the rule in question would have been repealed at the time the CFJ was called (thus even if you count actions performed by rules, the game would no longer be defining the action in question). Perhaps we need a CFJ about what "action" means. Done a bit of digging in the rules. There's no formal definition of game actions. The three references are: == Rule 101/17 ¶1 == Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. == Rule 2466/1 ¶2 == A person CANNOT act on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game action... == Rule 2553/0 ¶1 == If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action, has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously for at least 7 days... The only entities described as being capable of performing game actions are players. But I would argue that these use cases are not comprehensive and do not constitute a definition and should not be interpreted in a way that arbitrarily limits the scope of what a game action can be. -- Trigon, Speaker of Agora
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 19:03 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/5/20 6:45 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > Rule 2553: “If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game > > action” > > > > CFJ 3828: “A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” > > > > I think the CFJ statement is in the wrong form for a paradox win. You > > would need to have asked about the possibility of, e.g., transferring a > > number of coins equal to [the amount you would otherwise have held + 1] > > to another player. > > I don't follow this line of reasoning. The CFJ was about a game action > (those of a coin being given to "someone") and it was asking about the > legal interpretation of the consequences of this coin award. To me, it > seems like it fits the bill. How is it a game-defined action? It's something that could have been done by the game rules, rather than something done by a player; and whether or not it happened, the rule in question would have been repealed at the time the CFJ was called (thus even if you count actions performed by rules, the game would no longer be defining the action in question). Perhaps we need a CFJ about what "action" means. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On 5/5/20 6:45 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: Rule 2553: “If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action” CFJ 3828: “A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” I think the CFJ statement is in the wrong form for a paradox win. You would need to have asked about the possibility of, e.g., transferring a number of coins equal to [the amount you would otherwise have held + 1] to another player. I don't follow this line of reasoning. The CFJ was about a game action (those of a coin being given to "someone") and it was asking about the legal interpretation of the consequences of this coin award. To me, it seems like it fits the bill. -- Trigon, Potentially Not Speaker of Agora Anymore, But Who Still Has To Brag About It Just In Case.
DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 10:42 +1000, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > G's judgement of PARADOXICAL on a CFJ I called has been in place for > ten days, accordingly make me speaker/champ thanks Rule 2553: “If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action” CFJ 3828: “A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” I think the CFJ statement is in the wrong form for a paradox win. You would need to have asked about the possibility of, e.g., transferring a number of coins equal to [the amount you would otherwise have held + 1] to another player. -- ais523
