Re: DIS: CFJs

[Aris Merchant]

The CFJs are as important as the ruleset. The game has three parts. The
rules, their interpretation, and how they're actually used. These are the
interpretations. My point is that we really need some sort of record for
this. The email archive hardly counts.

-Aris

On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> That seems like a logical short-term solution, though a database would
> be nicer. The main problem is that no one wants to take on more
> responsibility right now.
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > Okay that's a big problem. We need one. In theory it could just be a
> report,
> > but have we considered putting it on the wiki?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Nicholas Evans  > wrote:
> >>
> >> There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
> >> look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
> >> the general mailing archives.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
> >> > wrote:
> >> > Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't
> >> > been
> >> > updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about
> >> > this.
> >> >
> >> > -Aris
>

Re: DIS: CFJs

[Nicholas Evans]

That seems like a logical short-term solution, though a database would
be nicer. The main problem is that no one wants to take on more
responsibility right now.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Okay that's a big problem. We need one. In theory it could just be a report,
> but have we considered putting it on the wiki?
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>>
>> There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
>> look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
>> the general mailing archives.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't
>> > been
>> > updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about
>> > this.
>> >
>> > -Aris

Re: DIS: CFJs

[Aris Merchant]

Okay that's a big problem. We need one. In theory it could just be a
report, but have we considered putting it on the wiki?

-Aris

On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
> look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
> the general mailing archives.
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't
> been
> > updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about
> this.
> >
> > -Aris
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker Fix

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{

This looks pretty good overall. I like the generalization of voting strength. 
However, I believe this proposal will be ineffective with AI=1 - several of the 
rules amended have Power greater than 1.
>   (2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of
>   options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according
>   to the standard definition of instant runoff. For this purpose, a
>   ballot of strength N is treated as if it were N distinct ballots
>   expressing the same preferences. In case multiple valid
>   options tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the
>   vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the
>   decision's resolution, select one such option to eliminate; if,
>   for N > 1, all eir possible choices in the next N stages would
>   result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need
>   not specify the order of elimination.
Did you intend to use N for both variables? It looks like the two variables are 
used differently (the first N for voting strength, the second N for order of 
elimination), so it may read better if you used two variables.
>   (3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the
>   options, and the outcome is whichever option received the
>   highest total strength of valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote
>   collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's
>   resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome.
> }}}
You’ve also removed the clarifiers regarding FAILED QUORUM outcomes et al. This 
doesn’t appear to be intentional.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: CFJs

[Nicholas Evans]

There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
the general mailing archives.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't been
> updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about this.
>
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3461 assigned to Alexis

[ais523]

On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 10:05 -0500, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> Being absurd doesn't generally make it untrue.
> 
> If your line of reasoning is upheld, CFJs have no meaning because
> they do not refer to truth. If so, we have no conflict resolution
> system. I'm concerned that purposely breaking the conflict resolution
> system is not treating Agora Right Good Forever.

Really, (inquiry) CFJs have never really been about the verdict,
they've been about the reasoning given by the judge. Often it's
possible to judge the truth value of a CFJ's statement without solving
the underlying problem at all.

Proto: CFJs don't have verdicts at all, just a statement by the judge
which explains the relevant circumstances and removes as much
uncertainty as reasonably possible about the truth value of the CFJ's
statement.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3461 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:06 AM Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> Being absurd doesn't generally make it untrue.
>
> If your line of reasoning is upheld, CFJs have no meaning because they
> do not refer to truth. If so, we have no conflict resolution system.
> I'm concerned that purposely breaking the conflict resolution system
> is not treating Agora Right Good Forever.
>

The other system is even worse, because it creates a conflict resolution
system which resolves conflict only when it does so correctly, which is a
nice state of affairs, but means that every CFJ is in doubt because it
might have been assigned the wrong judgement, meaning it has no judgement
at all.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3461 assigned to Alexis

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
> nichdel's interpretation, that TRUE
> and/or FALSE are only valid for a true and false statement, respectively,
> lead to the even more absurd result that any attempt to assign an incorrect
> judgement fails platonically (since a judge can only assign valid
> judgements).
>

Being absurd doesn't generally make it untrue.

If your line of reasoning is upheld, CFJs have no meaning because they
do not refer to truth. If so, we have no conflict resolution system.
I'm concerned that purposely breaking the conflict resolution system
is not treating Agora Right Good Forever.

DIS: CFJs

[Aris Merchant]

Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't been
updated recently? Is there one that has? Sorry if I'm just wrong about this.

-Aris