Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 13:15 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote: > twg wrote: > > > Notice of Honour: > > -1 D. Margaux (holding up an important ruleset fix with eir attempt > > at a win) > > +1 Murphy (inadvertently(?) preventing a paradox) > > What did /I/ do? You wrote a report which broke up the paradox when it self-ratified, and nobody noticed at the time. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
twg wrote: Notice of Honour: -1 D. Margaux (holding up an important ruleset fix with eir attempt at a win) +1 Murphy (inadvertently(?) preventing a paradox) What did /I/ do?
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
Yes, that is in fact exactly what I argue in the judgement to CFJ 3724. :P I expect D. Margaux meant something like "its outcome, _if resolved now_, would be ADOPTED". I imagine e would have resubmitted it with that wording, after realising that the initial wording was wrong, if it hadn't become apparent that the error in the ADoP report completely ruled out eir Win by Paradox anyway. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 9, 2019 3:36 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: > > > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > > the Assessor. > > Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's > outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the > decision. > > Is "outcome" a well-defined property of a decision before it's > resolved? Rule 955 specifies some rules about computing the outcome, > and we could try to apply those rules before it's resolved to compute > a provisional "outcome" (even if the voting period hasn't ended, based > on the ballots cast so far). But Rule 955 also says "The outcome of a > decision is determined when it is resolved", which seems to imply that > the outcome is not determined before it's resolved. If that's true, > Proposal 8164's outcome could not have been ADOPTED, for the simple > reason that nobody had attempted to resolve the decision and so the > outcome must have been undetermined at that point.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > the Assessor. Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the decision. Is "outcome" a well-defined property of a decision before it's resolved? Rule 955 specifies some rules about computing the outcome, and we could try to apply those rules before it's resolved to compute a provisional "outcome" (even if the voting period hasn't ended, based on the ballots cast so far). But Rule 955 also says "The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved", which seems to imply that the outcome is not determined before it's resolved. If that's true, Proposal 8164's outcome could not have been ADOPTED, for the simple reason that nobody had attempted to resolve the decision and so the outcome must have been undetermined at that point.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is the Assessor. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails. ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated conditional On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails. ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated conditional On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what > you think... > > -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Friday, March 8, 2019 2:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - > disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance > of R2202 you're supposed to use disclaimers when reporting false things > for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop > ratification. Yeah, I agree, and the disclaimer is disclaiming something else anyway. I just thought I should mention it, since it seems like the sort of thing someone might try to use to cast doubt on the judgement. :P > Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification. It will retroactively > determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the > report will have still have self-ratified as it was written. Yes, exactly. So the SPOOKY distribution failed either way, and there is no paradox (and will not be even when P8164 is adopted normally). -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
Well that is a very, very annoying oversight on my part. Nice catch. > On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's > ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well! > > You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - > disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance > of R2202 you're *supposed* to use disclaimers when reporting false things > for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop > ratification. > > Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification. It will retroactively > determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the > report will have still have self-ratified as it was written. > > >> On 3/7/2019 6:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what >> you think... >> -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well! You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance of R2202 you're *supposed* to use disclaimers when reporting false things for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop ratification. Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification. It will retroactively determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the report will have still have self-ratified as it was written. On 3/7/2019 6:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg
