Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 11:36 AM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > wrote: > > Ratification doesn't create paradoxes, though. The "compute what a > retroactive change would do, then apply it" method of handling the > change means that even if the cause of the ratification ends up being > ratified away, the ratification still happened. Ratification doesn’t create paradoxes, but no ratification has occurred here. Instead, the situation here is: 1) The Assessor CAN and MUST resolve the proposal ADOPTED; and 2) As soon as the proposal is resolved ADOPTED, it takes effect (if it CAN take effect) and it retroactively eliminates a necessary condition for its own ADOPTION, thereby making it retroactively IMPOSSIBLE to resolve it ADOPTED. The paradox exists until ratification, when the proposal is deemed distributed without paradox.
Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 12:28 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > wrote: > > The proposal /was/ distributed, though. It's just that its adoption > changed the gamestate as though it wasn't. > > Denying the CoE constitutes a claim that the proposal was distributed. > Well, it /was/ distributed! A change to the gamestate as though the > distribution were IMPOSSIBLE doesn't change the fact that it actually > happened. Before this proposal, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Gaelan to declare victory by apathy and therefore the “fact” is that e didn’t do so. The proposal, if ADOPTED, would change the “fact” of whether that happened—that’s the whole point of retroactivity. By the very same reasoning, the ADOPTION of the proposal should also change the POSSIBILITY of its distribution and also the “fact” of its distribution. > Think about it this way: suppose a proposal is puportedly distributed > in an impossible way, nobody notices, the Assessment remains unCOEd for > a week, so the fact that the Agoran decision on whether to adopt it > existed ends up self-ratifying. Creating the Agoran decision on whether > to adopt a proposal is distribution, so in the resulting gamestate, > either the proposal was distributed, or else a decision about whether > to adopt it existed without ever having been created. If we take the > former condition, we now have a gamestate in which the proposal was > distributed, despite it having been IMPOSSIBLE to do so. In this example, ratification of the assessment changes the “fact” of whether the proposal was distributed. The distribution was IMPOSSIBLE and originally it didn’t happen, but upon ratification it is retroactively deemed to have EFFECTIVELY happened. The ratification changes the “fact” of the distribution from false to true. > > After the proposal retroactively makes its own distribution impossible, > we end up with exactly the same sort of gamestate; there's no way that > the proposal could have been distributed, but it's nonetheless a > historical fact that it was distributed. That would be true if Proposal 8164 had been resolved ADOPTED and that resolution had self-ratified. If that had happened, the paradox would be ratified out of existence and the fact of distribution would be established by ratification. But that hasn’t happened. The paradox then arises because Proposal 8164 changes the gamestate to what it would have been if intents worked in the past. That changes the “fact” of whether Gaelan won by apathy. It also changes the “fact” of whether the proposal was EFFECTIVELY distributed. So after that “fact” changes, a CoE needs to be granted because there was no distribution, except that granting the CoE is also wrong, because it would undo itself. > The adoption of the proposal > destroys the decision about whether to adopt it (because the decision > existed beforehand, and the proposal attempted to change the gamestate > to a state where it wouldn't have), but it's too late; the decision's > already been resolved by that point. It has been resolved, but it is not final because it can be CoE’d. And the result of the CoE is paradoxical I think. > Meanwhile, the gamestate > recalculation isn't recursive; the proposal doesn't attempt to undo its > own adoption process, because we're recalculating based on the > gamestate immediately before the adoption of the proposal, and then > applying all the changes atomically in a single batch. I’m not sure why that would be true. The adoption of the proposal changes the “fact” of its distribution and thereby destroys a condition precedent to its own adoption. And until ratification, a player can raise a CoE that says one of the conditions precedent to ADOPTION is lacking.
Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 09:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > No, the paradox is something like: > > 1. Purported resolution message from Assessor; > 2. CoE: this Proposal was never distributed so wasn't adopted. > > In terms of the truth value of the CoE, if it is true (wasn't adopted) then > it is false (it was distributed, therefore adopted). A CFJ on whether the > Assessor can legally deny the CoE (given No Faking) may meet the win > condition. The proposal /was/ distributed, though. It's just that its adoption changed the gamestate as though it wasn't. Denying the CoE constitutes a claim that the proposal was distributed. Well, it /was/ distributed! A change to the gamestate as though the distribution were IMPOSSIBLE doesn't change the fact that it actually happened. Think about it this way: suppose a proposal is puportedly distributed in an impossible way, nobody notices, the Assessment remains unCOEd for a week, so the fact that the Agoran decision on whether to adopt it existed ends up self-ratifying. Creating the Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal is distribution, so in the resulting gamestate, either the proposal was distributed, or else a decision about whether to adopt it existed without ever having been created. If we take the former condition, we now have a gamestate in which the proposal was distributed, despite it having been IMPOSSIBLE to do so. I don't see any real issue here; "event X couldn't possibly have happened, but happened anyway" is fairly minor as contradictions go (especially as the rules care about what happened, not what could have happened). After the proposal retroactively makes its own distribution impossible, we end up with exactly the same sort of gamestate; there's no way that the proposal could have been distributed, but it's nonetheless a historical fact that it was distributed. The adoption of the proposal destroys the decision about whether to adopt it (because the decision existed beforehand, and the proposal attempted to change the gamestate to a state where it wouldn't have), but it's too late; the decision's already been resolved by that point. Meanwhile, the gamestate recalculation isn't recursive; the proposal doesn't attempt to undo its own adoption process, because we're recalculating based on the gamestate immediately before the adoption of the proposal, and then applying all the changes atomically in a single batch. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
On 3/7/2019 8:36 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 07:31 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: Another fix would be to simply for us all to not CoE a purported attempt to resolve the proposal (R2034) and also let the recent promotor's pool report self-ratify without the proposal in it - tho that may open the gate for more paradox wins, I dunno. Ratification doesn't create paradoxes, though. The "compute what a retroactive change would do, then apply it" method of handling the change means that even if the cause of the ratification ends up being ratified away, the ratification still happened. No, the paradox is something like: 1. Purported resolution message from Assessor; 2. CoE: this Proposal was never distributed so wasn't adopted. In terms of the truth value of the CoE, if it is true (wasn't adopted) then it is false (it was distributed, therefore adopted). A CFJ on whether the Assessor can legally deny the CoE (given No Faking) may meet the win condition.
Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 07:31 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Another fix would be to simply for us all to not CoE a purported attempt to > resolve the proposal (R2034) and also let the recent promotor's pool report > self-ratify without the proposal in it - tho that may open the gate for more > paradox wins, I dunno. Ratification doesn't create paradoxes, though. The "compute what a retroactive change would do, then apply it" method of handling the change means that even if the cause of the ratification ends up being ratified away, the ratification still happened. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
On 3/7/2019 6:57 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Aris, I believe that Proposal 8164 has become undistributed, so could you > please attempt to distribute it once more as soon as possible, to minimise > the time until it can take effect? (If I'm wrong, then the worst that can > happen is that your action is INEFFECTIVE.) Another fix would be to simply for us all to not CoE a purported attempt to resolve the proposal (R2034) and also let the recent promotor's pool report self-ratify without the proposal in it - tho that may open the gate for more paradox wins, I dunno.
DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)
Will type up my judgement later when I'm actually at home, but I am fairly certain that the correct judgements are as follows: CFJ 3722 - TRUE. CFJ 3723 - FALSE. CFJ 3724 - FALSE. Aris, I believe that Proposal 8164 has become undistributed, so could you please attempt to distribute it once more as soon as possible, to minimise the time until it can take effect? (If I'm wrong, then the worst that can happen is that your action is INEFFECTIVE.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:20 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I submit to the Referee the following linked CFJs, and I suggest that they > all should be assigned to the same Judge: > > 1. “It was POSSIBLE for D. Margaux acting on behalf of ATMunn to issue a > Cabinet Order of Manifesto in the message quoted below.” > 2. “The Assessor currently CAN and MAY resolve an Agoran Decision whether to > adopt Proposal 8164 to be ADOPTED.” > 3. “An Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 was initiated and its > outcome is ADOPTED.” > > Caller’s Arguments: > > The judgements for at least one (and maybe all) of these CFJs should be > PARADOXICAL. > > A few weeks back, ATMunn was indisputably Prime Minister and Gaelan attempted > to win by apathy. Gaelan’s attempted win would have been successful except > that without-objection intents were broken at that time. Shortly thereafter, > I published an intent to appoint Gaelan specifically to be Speaker (it was > not a general “appoint a speaker” intent; I specifically said I intended to > appoint Gaelan). Then I attempted to execute that intent and deputise for > Prime Minister to do so. That deputisation would be EFFECTIVE if Gaelan had > won by apathy and had been laureled. As a result, if intents are fixed > retroactively, then Gaelan was retroactively laureled and my deputisation > succeeded in installing me as Prime Minister retroactively. > > After I attempted that deputisation, I next acted on behalf of ATMunn to > attempt to distribute by Manifesto a proposal to fix dependent actions > retroactively. I believe a quorum attempted to vote FOR and no one attempted > to vote AGAINST. > > Soo I think that the Assessor can’t resolve this proposal without > resulting in a PARADOX. > > To put it another way: > > [1] If dependent actions are NOT fixed retroactively, then ATMunn was Prime > Minister at the time of the below message and the attempted distribution of > Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE; > > [2] If the distribution of Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE, then in a timely > fashion the Assessor CAN and MUST resolve it to be ADOPTED; > > [3] If the Assessor resolves Proposal 8164 ADOPTED, then that retroactively > fixes dependent actions, thereby making me Prime Minister retroactively at > the time of the attempted distribution of Proposal 8164; > > [4] If I was Prime Minister at the time of the attempted distribution of > Proposal 8164, then the attempted distribution by me-acting-as-ATMunn was > INEFFECTIVE, the proposal was never properly distributed, and therefore the > Assessor CANNOT and MUST NOT resolve it to be ADOPTED (and a CoE to challenge > a purported ADOPTION would be proper and would prevent ratification); > > [5] If Proposal 8164 is not ADOPTED, then dependent actions are NOT fixed > retroactively; > > [6] Return to step 1 above and repeat. > > Sorry all! > > I think we can fix this by a proposal that retroactively-retroactively-fixes > the gamestate. But in the meantime, I think these CFJs are PARADOXICAL...? > > > On Feb 27, 2019, at 8:34 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue the > > Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the below proposal, initiating the > > Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is > > 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and > > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). > > Proposal ID: 8164 > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.4 > > Author: Falsifian > > Co-authors: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg > > Adoption Index: 3.1 > > Text: > > The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have > > been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined > > whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted after Proposal > > 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the > > extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. > > Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following: > > > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has p
