Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Cuddle Beam]

 (You could take that the place where the thought blooms itself is where it
"originates". Or the origin of the heat itself. If we assume that a start
of the universe was the originator of everything, and we assume that
nothing can have more than one originator, then nothing is an originator.
Or everything in a chain of cause-effect is the originator of the stuff
after it, if things can have more than one originator. Kind of depends on
how far up the chain of causality you go... And if its unclear then its
easily defused with that other stuff because of the "if its unclear
then..." thing in the CFJ rules. But I think that "originating" something
is clear enough. Hopefully, lol.)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Yes, more or less the argument I'm supporting. That Agora originates
> (gives rise to) in OTHERS, thoughts. Note the ones I bring up about Agora
> to defend the case aren't of the creative kind, they're of the "yeah it
> exists and its there" kind - passive.
>
> Imagine, really hot stew. You could accidentally burn yourself on it, and
> get the thought of "[profanity of your choice here] that was really hot!".
> You didn't deliberately make that thought - but it didn't come from
> nowhere. It came from the stew (via you perceiving it. And you couldn't
> have perceived it if wasn't there in the first place, so the origin of that
> chain reaction is the heat of the stew. Heat is there-> Heat is
> perceived->thought about the Heat).
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined
>> in other ways.  The key quote:
>> It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the
>> Intention,
>> is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable.  Every assumed
>> act of
>> free will can be traced to a particular person's desire.  Thus, as
>> final
>> cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also
>> non-transferable,
>> in the most fundamental sense.
>> In other words, if there's a collection of persons behind an Agoran
>> action,
>> they are the "originators of thought", not Agora.
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > - It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are
>> > personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M.
>> > Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of
>> > perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore
>> "originating"
>> > them as per the term). For example, the personal thought experience of
>> > Agora itself within each player.
>> > - " Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
>> > accord" <- there is no explicit mention that the origination needs to be
>> > made by the person itself.
>> > - The argument can be generalized that Agora, as a gestalt of various
>> > game-communications, can originate (in the sense of "giving rise to")
>> > various thoughts besides itself. Such as the thought experience of CFJs
>> in
>> > the game and whatnot.
>> > - Indeed it doesn't. But containing thoughts isn't a requirement to be a
>> > person, just originating and communicating them.
>> > - The same argument could be put that you (most likely lol) can only
>> > communicate ideas that you're able to vocalize/write and think of - and
>> are
>> > incapable of communicating any other ideas. Does that mean you do not
>> > communicate ideas freely? We could indeed argue that we are indeed not
>> > truely entirely free, therefore, none of us are persons, therefore,
>> none of
>> > us is actually a player of this game.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Proto-gratuitous arguments:
>> > >
>> > > There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or
>> idea)
>> > > throughout)
>> > > Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody
>> that
>> > > thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
>> > > Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
>> accord.
>> > > Agora can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been
>> thought of
>> > > by a player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent
>> > > thoughts.
>> > > Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only
>> originates the
>> > > thought of itself.
>> > > Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within
>> Agora
>> > > were originally from a player.
>> > > Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas
>> that
>> > > one of us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of
>> communicating
>> > > any other ideas.
>> > >
>> > > Gaelan
>> > >
>> > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"
>> > > >
>> > > > Grat. Arguments:
>> > > >
>> > > > 

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes, more or less the argument I'm supporting. That Agora originates (gives
rise to) in OTHERS, thoughts. Note the ones I bring up about Agora to
defend the case aren't of the creative kind, they're of the "yeah it exists
and its there" kind - passive.

Imagine, really hot stew. You could accidentally burn yourself on it, and
get the thought of "[profanity of your choice here] that was really hot!".
You didn't deliberately make that thought - but it didn't come from
nowhere. It came from the stew (via you perceiving it. And you couldn't
have perceived it if wasn't there in the first place, so the origin of that
chain reaction is the heat of the stew. Heat is there-> Heat is
perceived->thought about the Heat).

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined
> in other ways.  The key quote:
> It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the
> Intention,
> is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable.  Every assumed
> act of
> free will can be traced to a particular person's desire.  Thus, as
> final
> cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also
> non-transferable,
> in the most fundamental sense.
> In other words, if there's a collection of persons behind an Agoran action,
> they are the "originators of thought", not Agora.
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > - It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are
> > personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M.
> > Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of
> > perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore
> "originating"
> > them as per the term). For example, the personal thought experience of
> > Agora itself within each player.
> > - " Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
> > accord" <- there is no explicit mention that the origination needs to be
> > made by the person itself.
> > - The argument can be generalized that Agora, as a gestalt of various
> > game-communications, can originate (in the sense of "giving rise to")
> > various thoughts besides itself. Such as the thought experience of CFJs
> in
> > the game and whatnot.
> > - Indeed it doesn't. But containing thoughts isn't a requirement to be a
> > person, just originating and communicating them.
> > - The same argument could be put that you (most likely lol) can only
> > communicate ideas that you're able to vocalize/write and think of - and
> are
> > incapable of communicating any other ideas. Does that mean you do not
> > communicate ideas freely? We could indeed argue that we are indeed not
> > truely entirely free, therefore, none of us are persons, therefore, none
> of
> > us is actually a player of this game.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> > > Proto-gratuitous arguments:
> > >
> > > There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or
> idea)
> > > throughout)
> > > Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody
> that
> > > thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
> > > Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
> accord.
> > > Agora can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been
> thought of
> > > by a player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent
> > > thoughts.
> > > Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only originates
> the
> > > thought of itself.
> > > Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within
> Agora
> > > were originally from a player.
> > > Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas
> that
> > > one of us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of
> communicating
> > > any other ideas.
> > >
> > > Gaelan
> > >
> > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"
> > > >
> > > > Grat. Arguments:
> > > >
> > > > R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely
> > > > originating and communicating
> > > > independent thoughts and ideas is a person."
> > > >
> > > > There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are
> > > > originated or communicated need to be from this "person" themselves.
> With
> > > > that known:
> > > >
> > > > Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being -
> a
> > > real
> > > > thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of
> > > > Agora-the-real-thing as we do now.
> > > >
> > > > Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the
> thought
> > > of
> > > > acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition of
> > > > "originating" that thought.
> > > >
> > > > There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this
> feat,
> > > > therefore, Agora 

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Kerim Aydin]

CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined
in other ways.  The key quote:
It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the 
Intention,
is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable.  Every assumed act of
free will can be traced to a particular person's desire.  Thus, as final
cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also 
non-transferable,
in the most fundamental sense.
In other words, if there's a collection of persons behind an Agoran action,
they are the "originators of thought", not Agora.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> - It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are
> personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M.
> Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of
> perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore "originating"
> them as per the term). For example, the personal thought experience of
> Agora itself within each player.
> - " Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
> accord" <- there is no explicit mention that the origination needs to be
> made by the person itself.
> - The argument can be generalized that Agora, as a gestalt of various
> game-communications, can originate (in the sense of "giving rise to")
> various thoughts besides itself. Such as the thought experience of CFJs in
> the game and whatnot.
> - Indeed it doesn't. But containing thoughts isn't a requirement to be a
> person, just originating and communicating them.
> - The same argument could be put that you (most likely lol) can only
> communicate ideas that you're able to vocalize/write and think of - and are
> incapable of communicating any other ideas. Does that mean you do not
> communicate ideas freely? We could indeed argue that we are indeed not
> truely entirely free, therefore, none of us are persons, therefore, none of
> us is actually a player of this game.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> > Proto-gratuitous arguments:
> >
> > There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or idea)
> > throughout)
> > Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody that
> > thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
> > Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own accord.
> > Agora can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been thought of
> > by a player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent
> > thoughts.
> > Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only originates the
> > thought of itself.
> > Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within Agora
> > were originally from a player.
> > Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas that
> > one of us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of communicating
> > any other ideas.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > >
> > > I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"
> > >
> > > Grat. Arguments:
> > >
> > > R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely
> > > originating and communicating
> > > independent thoughts and ideas is a person."
> > >
> > > There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are
> > > originated or communicated need to be from this "person" themselves. With
> > > that known:
> > >
> > > Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being - a
> > real
> > > thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of
> > > Agora-the-real-thing as we do now.
> > >
> > > Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the thought
> > of
> > > acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition of
> > > "originating" that thought.
> > >
> > > There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this feat,
> > > therefore, Agora freely originates the thought of Agora itself.
> > >
> > > Agora is a communication system, evidenced by this mailing list and R101.
> > > It communicates (without extraordinary restriction) our own independent
> > > thoughts and ideas, by merit of being a transportation system of those
> > > things.
> > >
> > > And so, Agora does in fact freely originate independent thoughts/ideas
> > (in
> > > other entities which are capable of such) and communicates thoughts/ideas
> > > (from others). Agora is a person.
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Cuddle Beam]

- It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are
personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M.
Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of
perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore "originating"
them as per the term). For example, the personal thought experience of
Agora itself within each player.
- " Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own
accord" <- there is no explicit mention that the origination needs to be
made by the person itself.
- The argument can be generalized that Agora, as a gestalt of various
game-communications, can originate (in the sense of "giving rise to")
various thoughts besides itself. Such as the thought experience of CFJs in
the game and whatnot.
- Indeed it doesn't. But containing thoughts isn't a requirement to be a
person, just originating and communicating them.
- The same argument could be put that you (most likely lol) can only
communicate ideas that you're able to vocalize/write and think of - and are
incapable of communicating any other ideas. Does that mean you do not
communicate ideas freely? We could indeed argue that we are indeed not
truely entirely free, therefore, none of us are persons, therefore, none of
us is actually a player of this game.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Proto-gratuitous arguments:
>
> There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or idea)
> throughout)
> Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody that
> thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
> Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own accord.
> Agora can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been thought of
> by a player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent
> thoughts.
> Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only originates the
> thought of itself.
> Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within Agora
> were originally from a player.
> Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas that
> one of us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of communicating
> any other ideas.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"
> >
> > Grat. Arguments:
> >
> > R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely
> > originating and communicating
> > independent thoughts and ideas is a person."
> >
> > There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are
> > originated or communicated need to be from this "person" themselves. With
> > that known:
> >
> > Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being - a
> real
> > thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of
> > Agora-the-real-thing as we do now.
> >
> > Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the thought
> of
> > acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition of
> > "originating" that thought.
> >
> > There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this feat,
> > therefore, Agora freely originates the thought of Agora itself.
> >
> > Agora is a communication system, evidenced by this mailing list and R101.
> > It communicates (without extraordinary restriction) our own independent
> > thoughts and ideas, by merit of being a transportation system of those
> > things.
> >
> > And so, Agora does in fact freely originate independent thoughts/ideas
> (in
> > other entities which are capable of such) and communicates thoughts/ideas
> > (from others). Agora is a person.
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Gaelan Steele]

Proto-gratuitous arguments:

There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or idea) 
throughout)
Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody that 
thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own accord. Agora 
can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been thought of by a 
player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent thoughts.
Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only originates the 
thought of itself.
Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within Agora were 
originally from a player.
Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas that one of 
us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of communicating any other 
ideas.

Gaelan

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"
> 
> Grat. Arguments:
> 
> R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely
> originating and communicating
> independent thoughts and ideas is a person."
> 
> There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are
> originated or communicated need to be from this "person" themselves. With
> that known:
> 
> Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being - a real
> thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of
> Agora-the-real-thing as we do now.
> 
> Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the thought of
> acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition of
> "originating" that thought.
> 
> There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this feat,
> therefore, Agora freely originates the thought of Agora itself.
> 
> Agora is a communication system, evidenced by this mailing list and R101.
> It communicates (without extraordinary restriction) our own independent
> thoughts and ideas, by merit of being a transportation system of those
> things.
> 
> And so, Agora does in fact freely originate independent thoughts/ideas (in
> other entities which are capable of such) and communicates thoughts/ideas
> (from others). Agora is a person.

DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Cuddle Beam]

I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"

Grat. Arguments:

R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely
originating and communicating
independent thoughts and ideas is a person."

There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are
originated or communicated need to be from this "person" themselves. With
that known:

Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being - a real
thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of
Agora-the-real-thing as we do now.

Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the thought of
acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition of
"originating" that thought.

There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this feat,
therefore, Agora freely originates the thought of Agora itself.

Agora is a communication system, evidenced by this mailing list and R101.
It communicates (without extraordinary restriction) our own independent
thoughts and ideas, by merit of being a transportation system of those
things.

And so, Agora does in fact freely originate independent thoughts/ideas (in
other entities which are capable of such) and communicates thoughts/ideas
(from others). Agora is a person.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol
> 
> It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"

I was inspired to look at a history for this.  TRUE and FALSE were
always there, but the rest of the scheme was:

1993 - UNDECIDED.

1995 - UNDECIDABLE (logically) and UNKNOWN.

1996 - DISMISS, which was not considered an actual judgement but
a procedural cancelling without judgement (undecidable and
unknown are removed).

2002 - DISMISSED becomes a judgement.

2007 - DISMISSED is split into UNDECIDABLE, IRRELEVANT, UNDETERMINED,
and MALFORMED, mainly so UNDECIDABLE could be used for paradox wins.
Since that covered the bases, the generic DISMISS was removed.

2014 - Having gotten rid of paradox wins, we decide (in a big ruleset
cull) that the distinctions no longer need top be tracked, so
we collapse to just DISMISS again, but list all the reasons
from the above judgement types in the DISMISS text (e.g. you can
DISMISS because the case is "irrelevant, malformed, undetermined"
etc.).

2017 - We separate out IRRELEVANT and INSUFFICIENT, but leave DISMISS to
cover undecidable, undetermined and malformed.  Mainly to add in
INSUFFICIENT to specifically hand-slap CFJ Callers who provide
no evidence (the influx of you newbies brought a bunch of this).

2017 - We put PARADOXICAL in to bring back paradox wins.  DISMISS still
covers the old UNDETERMINED and MALFORMED.

DIS: FLR error

[Kerim Aydin]

H. Rulekeepor,

This annotation for R591:

Amended(45) by Proposal 7975 "Auctions v6" (ATMunn; with o, Aris,
   nichdel, G.), Nov 26, 2017

should be:

Amended(45) by Proposal 7976 "A Mostest Ingenious Paradox" (Alexis;
   with ais523), Nov 26, 2017

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Aris Merchant]

Please, no. The mailing lists are for game business, game reports, and
game discussion. Everyone gets off topic sometimes, and that's okay,
but please try to remain focused on game matters.

-Aris

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> do you kno da wae?
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>
>> dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at all
>> here are we...
>>
>>
>> On 2/11/2018 11:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that's a bit the intent.
>>>
>>> A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the
>>> Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs*
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>>
>>> I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else
 to support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator, I’m
 automatically kicked out of the contract upon amendment.

 Gaelan

 On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> I intend to leave the contract below (the "THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD"
> one)
>
> I join the contract.
>
> I intend to amend it to only say "Only Cuddlebeam can amend this
>
 contract. Any

> player CAN become a party to this contract. No player can leave this
> contract, except for Cuddlebeam."
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <
>> j...@iinet.net.au>, while rest are Telnaior .
>> That’s
>> probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a
>> good habit to get into as well).
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>>
>>> Muphry's Law strikes again~
>>>
>>> On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>
 In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The

>>> Fact-Checkers’ Guild”.
>>
>>>
 This is embarrassing.

 Gaelan

 On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:
>
> {
> THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD
>
> This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the
>
 game-state has changed due to the self-ratification of a document
>> that,
>> before its self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed
>>
> Its

> Duties, all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its
>> terms.
>>
>>>
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract.
>
> Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have
>
 publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days
>>
> prior.

>
> Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as
>
 defined in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters
>>
> who

> are parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who
>> objected to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they
>>
> have

> publicly stated that they do not wish for this to occur).
>>
>>> }
>
> Gaelan
>

>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Reuben Staley]

That meme died the second it was born because it's so lame.

On Feb 12, 2018 13:14, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

do you kno da wae?

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at all
> here are we...
>
>
> On 2/11/2018 11:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's a bit the intent.
>>
>> A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the
>> Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs*
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>
>> I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone
else
>>> to support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator,
I’m
>>> automatically kicked out of the contract upon amendment.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

 I intend to leave the contract below (the "THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD"
 one)

 I join the contract.

 I intend to amend it to only say "Only Cuddlebeam can amend this

>>> contract. Any
>>>
 player CAN become a party to this contract. No player can leave this
 contract, except for Cuddlebeam."

 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

 Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <
> j...@iinet.net.au>, while rest are Telnaior .
> That’s
> probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also
a
> good habit to get into as well).
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>
>> Muphry's Law strikes again~
>>
>> On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>>> In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The
>>>
>> Fact-Checkers’ Guild”.
>
>>
>>> This is embarrassing.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

 I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:

 {
 THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD

 This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the

>>> game-state has changed due to the self-ratification of a document
> that,
> before its self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has
Failed
>
 Its
>>>
 Duties, all parties to this contract are considered to have breached
its
> terms.
>
>>
 Any player CAN become a party to this contract.

 Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have

>>> publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days
>
 prior.
>>>

 Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as

>>> defined in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and
supporters
>
 who
>>>
 are parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who
> objected to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they
>
 have
>>>
 publicly stated that they do not wish for this to occur).
>
>> }

 Gaelan

>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Cuddle Beam]

do you kno da wae?

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at all
> here are we...
>
>
> On 2/11/2018 11:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's a bit the intent.
>>
>> A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the
>> Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs*
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>
>> I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else
>>> to support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator, I’m
>>> automatically kicked out of the contract upon amendment.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

 I intend to leave the contract below (the "THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD"
 one)

 I join the contract.

 I intend to amend it to only say "Only Cuddlebeam can amend this

>>> contract. Any
>>>
 player CAN become a party to this contract. No player can leave this
 contract, except for Cuddlebeam."

 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

 Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <
> j...@iinet.net.au>, while rest are Telnaior .
> That’s
> probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a
> good habit to get into as well).
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>
>> Muphry's Law strikes again~
>>
>> On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>>> In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The
>>>
>> Fact-Checkers’ Guild”.
>
>>
>>> This is embarrassing.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

 I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:

 {
 THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD

 This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the

>>> game-state has changed due to the self-ratification of a document
> that,
> before its self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed
>
 Its
>>>
 Duties, all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its
> terms.
>
>>
 Any player CAN become a party to this contract.

 Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have

>>> publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days
>
 prior.
>>>

 Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as

>>> defined in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters
>
 who
>>>
 are parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who
> objected to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they
>
 have
>>>
 publicly stated that they do not wish for this to occur).
>
>> }

 Gaelan

>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Cuddle Beam]

I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol

It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"



On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and
> doshes
> aren't rules defined or described, so don't have anything to do with
> earning
> shinies, so whether someone distimmed eir doshes is irrelevant to the
> state of
> shinies.
>
> IRRELEVANT is also appropriate for your first assertion in that judgement:
> if you say "we can't know until the auction is over because other things
> might happen" then the question is "overly hypothetical" which is a
> specific
> use for IRRELEVANT.  (IRRELEVANT is really a special case of DISMISS:
> "overly hypothetical" is a special case of "insufficient information" - so
> DISMISS is just fine as a judgement even if it's not absolutely precise).
>
> An "Invalid bid" is a bit different, because you can in a common-sense way
> define what is meant by that: e.g. "a clear attempt to bid using language
> in the rules for bids and numbers" and adjudicate on whether the bid was
> in fact a bid.  But as I said, it's a fine line and others might put
> "invalid bids" into the same bucket as doshes (though I don't think doshes
> fit in buckets).
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >  To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting,
> > assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect
> it
> > would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn
> a
> > Shiny?"
> >
> > So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a
> shiny"
> >
> > However, didn't we kick out of play considering "distimming the doshes"?
> > How could you use Modus Ponens on something like that? I can't process it
> > because it relies on something out of play! If I answered TRUE or FALSE
> to
> > that, it would be assumed that it CAN BE either one, but for that to even
> > be able to happen it needs to be considered for play!
> >
> > Imagine if instead of "Distimming the doshes", it was a literal image of
> a
> > potato. "[Literal image of a potato], therefore, he earned a Shiny".
> >
> > Put a different way, if I gave "Did the distimming of the doshes per se
> > make him earn a Shiny?" a Judgement of FALSE, that means that "Did he
> > distim the doshes?" isn't clogging the processing of logic because it's
> > considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it
> > could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not
> actually
> > Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?" is DISMISS!
> >
> > So, the statement of " Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him
> > earn a Shiny?" is also DISMISS (I assume).
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!
> > >
> > > I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I
> tend
> > > to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing,
> so
> > > an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga
> boogas
> > > that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid"
> has
> > > some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning
> > > "if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.
> > >
> > > But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
> > > your way is fine too...
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it
> necessary.
> > > >
> > > > (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
> > > > statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim
> the
> > > > doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language
> sense,
> > > > it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
> > > > statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
> > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've
> been
> > > > much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the
> first
> > > > place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At
> least,
> > > > that's how I see it.)
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you
> accept
> > > > > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
> > > > > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction
> still
> > > in
> > > > > > place, it would have won."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I
> > > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Kerim Aydin]

For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and doshes 
aren't rules defined or described, so don't have anything to do with earning
shinies, so whether someone distimmed eir doshes is irrelevant to the state of
shinies.

IRRELEVANT is also appropriate for your first assertion in that judgement:
if you say "we can't know until the auction is over because other things 
might happen" then the question is "overly hypothetical" which is a specific
use for IRRELEVANT.  (IRRELEVANT is really a special case of DISMISS:
"overly hypothetical" is a special case of "insufficient information" - so
DISMISS is just fine as a judgement even if it's not absolutely precise).

An "Invalid bid" is a bit different, because you can in a common-sense way
define what is meant by that: e.g. "a clear attempt to bid using language
in the rules for bids and numbers" and adjudicate on whether the bid was
in fact a bid.  But as I said, it's a fine line and others might put 
"invalid bids" into the same bucket as doshes (though I don't think doshes
fit in buckets).

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>  To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting,
> assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect it
> would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn a
> Shiny?"
> 
> So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a shiny"
> 
> However, didn't we kick out of play considering "distimming the doshes"?
> How could you use Modus Ponens on something like that? I can't process it
> because it relies on something out of play! If I answered TRUE or FALSE to
> that, it would be assumed that it CAN BE either one, but for that to even
> be able to happen it needs to be considered for play!
> 
> Imagine if instead of "Distimming the doshes", it was a literal image of a
> potato. "[Literal image of a potato], therefore, he earned a Shiny".
> 
> Put a different way, if I gave "Did the distimming of the doshes per se
> make him earn a Shiny?" a Judgement of FALSE, that means that "Did he
> distim the doshes?" isn't clogging the processing of logic because it's
> considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it
> could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not actually
> Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?" is DISMISS!
> 
> So, the statement of " Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him
> earn a Shiny?" is also DISMISS (I assume).
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!
> >
> > I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend
> > to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so
> > an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga boogas
> > that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has
> > some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning
> > "if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.
> >
> > But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
> > your way is fine too...
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary.
> > >
> > > (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
> > > statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
> > > doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
> > > it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
> > > statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've been
> > > much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the first
> > > place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At least,
> > > that's how I see it.)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
> > > > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
> > > > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still
> > in
> > > > > place, it would have won."
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I
> > fully
> > > > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the
> > idea
> > > > -
> > > > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it
> > > > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if
> > > > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Cuddle Beam]

 But yeah its a fuzzy line tbh. I can see your line of reasoning, it's like
one of those illusions where you can force your eye to make the ballerina
seem to rotate one way or the other.

I just wanted to mention that below lol because my head would feel
constipated otherwise and I think its a cool share : P.


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting,
> assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect
> it would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn
> a Shiny?"
>
> So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a shiny"
>
> However, didn't we kick out of play considering "distimming the doshes"?
> How could you use Modus Ponens on something like that? I can't process it
> because it relies on something out of play! If I answered TRUE or FALSE to
> that, it would be assumed that it CAN BE either one, but for that to even
> be able to happen it needs to be considered for play!
>
> Imagine if instead of "Distimming the doshes", it was a literal image of a
> potato. "[Literal image of a potato], therefore, he earned a Shiny".
>
> Put a different way, if I gave "Did the distimming of the doshes per se
> make him earn a Shiny?" a Judgement of FALSE, that means that "Did he
> distim the doshes?" isn't clogging the processing of logic because it's
> considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it
> could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not actually
> Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?" is DISMISS!
>
> So, the statement of " Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him
> earn a Shiny?" is also DISMISS (I assume).
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!
>>
>> I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend
>> to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so
>> an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga
>> boogas
>> that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has
>> some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning
>> "if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.
>>
>> But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
>> your way is fine too...
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it
>> necessary.
>> >
>> > (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
>> > statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
>> > doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
>> > it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
>> > statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
>> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've
>> been
>> > much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the
>> first
>> > place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At
>> least,
>> > that's how I see it.)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
>> > > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
>> > > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still
>> in
>> > > > place, it would have won."
>> > > >
>> > > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I
>> fully
>> > > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the
>> idea
>> > > -
>> > > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give
>> it.
>> > > >
>> > > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling
>> it
>> > > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What
>> if
>> > > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at
>> any
>> > > > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by
>> > > announcement.
>> > > > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would
>> cease to
>> > > be
>> > > > such.
>> > > >
>> > > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a
>> judgement, the
>> > > > verdict is DISMISS.
>> > > >
>> > > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a
>> bid in
>> > > > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
>> > > >
>> > > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate,
>> because then
>> > > > this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
>> > > >
>> > > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the
>> first
>> > > > place, 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Alexis Hunt]

Thanks!


On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look
> over
> > them for annotations?
>
> Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):
>
> 3614:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.html
> Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > > I judge TRUE.  But only in a very limited sense - for example, if
> two
> > > > > contracts perform a "handshake" that one contract authorizes
> starting
> > > > > an auction in another contract that permits such authorization.
> However,
> > > > > rules-auctions (for example) are restricted and so couldn't be so
> > > > > authorized without the rule defining the auction explicitly
> permitting
> > > > > it.
>
> 3615:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.html
> Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > > I judge this FALSE.  Zombie Auctions are the counterexample (higher
> > > > > power overrules this clause) and there aren't other types of
> auctions
> > > > > to consider.
>
> 3616:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012156.html
> Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > > I judge it IRRELEVANT.  Too much work for now-gone gamestate
> > > > > reconstruction.
>
> 3618:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012157.html
> Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > > I judge this case TRUE. R2034 is weird by
> > > > > ratifying information not actually contained in the document that
> > > > > ratifies (when adoption and taking effect are uncoupled).  Causes
> weird
> > > > > effects.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
> them for annotations?

Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):

3614: 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge TRUE.  But only in a very limited sense - for example, if two
> > > > contracts perform a "handshake" that one contract authorizes starting
> > > > an auction in another contract that permits such authorization. However,
> > > > rules-auctions (for example) are restricted and so couldn't be so
> > > > authorized without the rule defining the auction explicitly permitting
> > > > it.

3615:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge this FALSE.  Zombie Auctions are the counterexample (higher
> > > > power overrules this clause) and there aren't other types of auctions
> > > > to consider.

3616:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012156.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge it IRRELEVANT.  Too much work for now-gone gamestate
> > > > reconstruction.

3618: 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012157.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge this case TRUE. R2034 is weird by
> > > > ratifying information not actually contained in the document that
> > > > ratifies (when adoption and taking effect are uncoupled).  Causes weird
> > > > effects.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Cuddle Beam]

 To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting,
assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect it
would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn a
Shiny?"

So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a shiny"

However, didn't we kick out of play considering "distimming the doshes"?
How could you use Modus Ponens on something like that? I can't process it
because it relies on something out of play! If I answered TRUE or FALSE to
that, it would be assumed that it CAN BE either one, but for that to even
be able to happen it needs to be considered for play!

Imagine if instead of "Distimming the doshes", it was a literal image of a
potato. "[Literal image of a potato], therefore, he earned a Shiny".

Put a different way, if I gave "Did the distimming of the doshes per se
make him earn a Shiny?" a Judgement of FALSE, that means that "Did he
distim the doshes?" isn't clogging the processing of logic because it's
considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it
could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not actually
Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?" is DISMISS!

So, the statement of " Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him
earn a Shiny?" is also DISMISS (I assume).


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!
>
> I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend
> to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so
> an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga boogas
> that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has
> some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning
> "if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.
>
> But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
> your way is fine too...
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary.
> >
> > (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
> > statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
> > doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
> > it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
> > statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've been
> > much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the first
> > place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At least,
> > that's how I see it.)
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
> > > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
> > > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still
> in
> > > > place, it would have won."
> > > >
> > > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I
> fully
> > > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the
> idea
> > > -
> > > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it.
> > > >
> > > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it
> > > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if
> > > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at
> any
> > > > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by
> > > announcement.
> > > > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would
> cease to
> > > be
> > > > such.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a
> judgement, the
> > > > verdict is DISMISS.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a
> bid in
> > > > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
> > > >
> > > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, because
> then
> > > > this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
> > > >
> > > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the first
> > > > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, unfortunately.
> > > >
> > > > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which
> > > gives
> > > > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 (
> > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I
> will
> > > give
> > > > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what
> this
> > > CFJ
> > > > is about.
> > > >
> > > > VERDICT: DISMISS
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Kerim Aydin]

No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!

I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend 
to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so 
an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga boogas
that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has
some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning 
"if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.

But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
your way is fine too...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary.
> 
> (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
> statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
> doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
> it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
> statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've been
> much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the first
> place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At least,
> that's how I see it.)
> 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
> > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
> > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still in
> > > place, it would have won."
> > >
> > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I fully
> > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the idea
> > -
> > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it.
> > >
> > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it
> > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if
> > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at any
> > > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by
> > announcement.
> > > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would cease to
> > be
> > > such.
> > >
> > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a judgement, the
> > > verdict is DISMISS.
> > >
> > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a bid in
> > > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
> > >
> > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, because then
> > > this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
> > >
> > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the first
> > > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which
> > gives
> > > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 (
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I will
> > give
> > > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what this
> > CFJ
> > > is about.
> > >
> > > VERDICT: DISMISS
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Cuddle Beam]

Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary.

(I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've been
much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the first
place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At least,
that's how I see it.)

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
> the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
> bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still in
> > place, it would have won."
> >
> > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I fully
> > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the idea
> -
> > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it.
> >
> > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it
> > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if
> > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at any
> > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by
> announcement.
> > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would cease to
> be
> > such.
> >
> > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a judgement, the
> > verdict is DISMISS.
> >
> > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a bid in
> > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
> >
> > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, because then
> > this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
> >
> > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the first
> > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, unfortunately.
> >
> > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which
> gives
> > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 (
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I will
> give
> > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what this
> CFJ
> > is about.
> >
> > VERDICT: DISMISS
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Alexis Hunt]

Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
them for annotations?


On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 13:40, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> > > > 3614*  Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00)
> > > If I am assigned to this case (unclear to me):
> > > I judge TRUE.  But only in a very limited sense - for example, if two
> > > contracts perform a "handshake" that one contract authorizes starting
> > > an auction in another contract that permits such authorization.
> However,
> > > rules-auctions (for example) are restricted and so couldn't be so
> > > authorized without the rule defining the auction explicitly permitting
> > > it.
> >
> > If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse o and assign it to G.
>
> If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.
>
>
> > > > 3615*  Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00)
> > > If I am assigned to this case:
> > > I judge this FALSE.  Zombie Auctions are the counterexample (higher
> > > power overrules this clause) and there aren't other types of auctions
> > > to consider.
> >
> > If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse o and assign it to G.
>
> If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.
>
>
> > > > 3616*  Assigned to Telnaior  (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:52:39)
> > > If I'm assigned to this case:
> > > I judge it IRRELEVANT.  Too much work for now-gone gamestate
> > > reconstruction.
> >
> > If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse Telnaior and assign it
> > to G.
>
> If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.
>
>
> > > > 3618*  Assigned to ATMunn(due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:55:35)
> > > If I'm assigned to this case, I judge this case TRUE. R2034 is weird by
> > > ratifying information not actually contained in the document that
> > > ratifies (when adoption and taking effect are uncoupled).  Causes weird
> > > effects.
> >
> > If this case remains unjudged, then I recuse ATMunn and assign it to G.
>
> If the above sentence assigned the case to me, I judge it as quoted above.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

[Kerim Aydin]

By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.  

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still in
> place, it would have won."
> 
> This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I fully
> understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the idea -
> due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it.
> 
> The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it
> because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if
> Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at any
> moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by announcement.
> Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would cease to be
> such.
> 
> Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a judgement, the
> verdict is DISMISS.
> 
> Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a bid in
> the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
> 
> But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, because then
> this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
> 
> So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the first
> place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, unfortunately.
> 
> However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which gives
> light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 (
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I will give
> no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what this CFJ
> is about.
> 
> VERDICT: DISMISS
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[ATMunn]

dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at 
all here are we...


On 2/11/2018 11:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Yes, that's a bit the intent.

A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the
Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs*

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:


I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else
to support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator, I’m
automatically kicked out of the contract upon amendment.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

I intend to leave the contract below (the "THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD" one)

I join the contract.

I intend to amend it to only say "Only Cuddlebeam can amend this

contract. Any

player CAN become a party to this contract. No player can leave this
contract, except for Cuddlebeam."

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:


Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <
j...@iinet.net.au>, while rest are Telnaior . That’s
probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a
good habit to get into as well).

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Muphry's Law strikes again~

On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:

In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The

Fact-Checkers’ Guild”.


This is embarrassing.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:

{
THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD

This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the

game-state has changed due to the self-ratification of a document that,
before its self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed

Its

Duties, all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its
terms.


Any player CAN become a party to this contract.

Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have

publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days

prior.


Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as

defined in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters

who

are parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who
objected to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they

have

publicly stated that they do not wish for this to occur).

}

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[ATMunn]

I don't think this worked as you failed to specify With Agoran Consent.

On 2/11/2018 10:51 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Ugh. I intend to amend (per the last paragraph) this contract by removing the 
all-caps line, if it exists, as well as the blank line following it. I support. 
I get annoyed about having to wait four days.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

Does it even have a title? It looks to me like it has no title and a first
line of text that is grammatically incorrect.


On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 22:45, Gaelan Steele  wrote:


In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’
Guild”.

This is embarrassing.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:

{
THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD

This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the game-state

has changed due to the self-ratification of a document that, before its
self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed Its Duties,
all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its terms.


Any player CAN become a party to this contract.

Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have

publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days prior.


Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as defined

in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters who are
parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who objected
to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they have publicly
stated that they do not wish for this to occur).

}

Gaelan