Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247
On 9/3/2019 4:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM Jason Cobb wrote: On 9/3/19 7:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I am a little unclear on exactly how this works, but I don't think ratifying a report can change anyone's Citizenship if it's not reporting on Citizenship in the first place. The most you could do here is create Spaceships in Corona's and L's possession - which I think would then instantly become property of the Lost and Found Department, because non-players are not valid Spaceship owners. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3455 found that a self-ratification of a document that implied a non-player had a particular value of a player switch triggered the "Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules" clause and the ratification failed. Corona and L owning Spaceships would be more "true and accurate" than them not owning Spaceships. So, if at all possible, it must make Corona and L own Spaceships. The only way they can own Spaceships is if they are players. Therefore, ratification must make Corona and L players, if at all possible. Therefore, ratification must flip their Citizenship switches to Registered if at all possible. It can do all of this by simply ratifying that the switches are at Registered, then by ratifying that they have Spaceships with the specified properties. Luckily for everyone, this very question is settled by precedent. See CFJ 1836 [1], which basically states that incidentally included information is unratified. Also https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3583, which was explicit that you can't ratify someone into being a player (even through ratifying the Registrar's Report) without explicit consent. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247
On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Luckily for everyone, this very question is settled by precedent. See CFJ 1836 > [1], which basically states that incidentally included information is > unratified. > > -Aris > > [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1836 > *opens link* > History: > > Called by omd: 18 Dec 2007 22:08:48 GMT > Assigned to pikhq: 19 Dec 2007 22:54:10 GMT > Judged FALSE by pikhq: 20 Dec 2007 01:08:48 GMT > Appealed by Murphy: 20 Dec 2007 05:57:56 GMT > Appealed by pikhq: 20 Dec 2007 06:02:41 GMT > Appealed by root: 20 Dec 2007 06:03:52 GMT > Appeal 1836a: 20 Dec 2007 07:08:04 GMT > REMANDED on Appeal: 20 Dec 2007 17:22:21 GMT > Assigned to pikhq: 21 Dec 2007 14:17:55 GMT > Judged FALSE by pikhq: 22 Dec 2007 00:35:36 GMT > Appealed by omd:22 Dec 2007 01:45:44 GMT > Appealed by BobTHJ: 22 Dec 2007 02:01:27 GMT > Appealed by Murphy: 22 Dec 2007 02:26:50 GMT > Appeal 1836b: 01 Jan 2008 01:37:25 GMT > AFFIRMED on Appeal: 07 Jan 2008 19:57:28 GMT ohhh boy -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
> > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
> Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so
> even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the
> pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be
> DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know
> whether the report is accurate.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
Yeah, I agree that it's a bit weak as paradoxes go. The reason I did it with
pledges is that a conditional _action_ ("if and only if the CFJ statement is
FALSE, I [move my Spaceship]") would simply have failed, per the precedent in
CFJ 1215.
As far as the timing of the CFJ goes, I don't believe it matters when the
pledges were made. The "legal situation at the time the [CFJ] was initiated"
already explicitly depends on the gamestate on Judgement Day, because that
gamestate determines whether it was POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE to levy the fine for
inaccurately reporting it. All the pledges do is provide evidence about what
the gamestate will be. I concede that they are not as convincing as if I
actually had conditionally performed the actions, but again, I don't think that
would work. So this is my best shot, and it may miss, but at least I tried.
Another possible interpretation is that the judge has to take into account the
legal situation at the time the CFJ was initiated, but *also* must not take
into account the future gamestate. I don't think it's possible to do both of
those things at once... so I'm not sure how Rule 591 would operate. Perhaps
_none_ of the given options would be valid, not even DISMISS? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm reminded of CFJ 3737, which Trigon recused emself from because it was
ILLEGAL to judge it correctly. That was a fun case.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:16 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/3/19 7:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I am a little unclear on exactly how this works, but I don't think > ratifying a report can change anyone's Citizenship if it's not reporting on > Citizenship in the first place. The most you could do here is create > Spaceships in Corona's and L's possession - which I think would then > instantly become property of the Lost and Found Department, because > non-players are not valid Spaceship owners. > > > Here's my logic: > > By 1551, we must find how the gamestate would be "minimally modified to > make [the report] as true and accurate as possible [at the time it > says].", with the exception that the modification can't introduce > inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules or modifying the > rules (which would make ratification fails). > > Corona and L owning Spaceships would be more "true and accurate" than > them not owning Spaceships. So, if at all possible, it must make Corona > and L own Spaceships. The only way they can own Spaceships is if they > are players. Therefore, ratification must make Corona and L players, if > at all possible. Therefore, ratification must flip their Citizenship > switches to Registered if at all possible. It can do all of this by > simply ratifying that the switches are at Registered, then by ratifying > that they have Spaceships with the specified properties. > > -- > Jason Cobb > Luckily for everyone, this very question is settled by precedent. See CFJ 1836 [1], which basically states that incidentally included information is unratified. -Aris [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1836 > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247
On 9/3/19 7:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I am a little unclear on exactly how this works, but I don't think ratifying a report can change anyone's Citizenship if it's not reporting on Citizenship in the first place. The most you could do here is create Spaceships in Corona's and L's possession - which I think would then instantly become property of the Lost and Found Department, because non-players are not valid Spaceship owners. Here's my logic: By 1551, we must find how the gamestate would be "minimally modified to make [the report] as true and accurate as possible [at the time it says].", with the exception that the modification can't introduce inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules or modifying the rules (which would make ratification fails). Corona and L owning Spaceships would be more "true and accurate" than them not owning Spaceships. So, if at all possible, it must make Corona and L own Spaceships. The only way they can own Spaceships is if they are players. Therefore, ratification must make Corona and L players, if at all possible. Therefore, ratification must flip their Citizenship switches to Registered if at all possible. It can do all of this by simply ratifying that the switches are at Registered, then by ratifying that they have Spaceships with the specified properties. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247
On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 6:49 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I change my vote on Proposal 8229 to FOR (if this passes it fixes my > report about the future, which might actually ratify that Corona and L > are players...). Ah blast, it didn't occur to me that that could resolve the superposition as well. (If indeed I did successfully set one up in the first place.) I am a little unclear on exactly how this works, but I don't think ratifying a report can change anyone's Citizenship if it's not reporting on Citizenship in the first place. The most you could do here is create Spaceships in Corona's and L's possession - which I think would then instantly become property of the Lost and Found Department, because non-players are not valid Spaceship owners. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On 9/2/2019 6:34 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the >> case until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future >> self's report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? > > The judge is instructed to "not [take] into account any events since > [the time the inquiry was called]", so as I understand it, the passing > of Judgement Day shouldn't affect the judgement of a CFJ called before > Judgement Day. Maybe. Evidence about past events, revealed after the CFJ, can certainly be taken into account. For example, in a case that involved a SHA-256 hash a few months ago, I sent the previously-unrevealed plaintext to the judge after the CFJ was called, and no one worried about that. In this case the line between "evidence" and "events after the CFJ" is quite a blurry one of course... (also, not gonna game this, I'll assign it in the next day or two). -G.
