Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On 06/08/2013 2:36 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: They're actually mostly not for counterscam purposes, as I don't claim they actually have any scammy effect. (Rather, I claim that their destroyability is paradoxical, and therefore I ought to be able to get a win by paradox in the near future. I'm mildly surprised Fool didn't think of this first, but e was too focused on the dictatorship interpretation.) I was aware of it. (I cashed the !!! promise before my stunt, referring to basically this.) I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you just did and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet nobody's doing it. It sort of looks like nobody cares. -Dan
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Fool wrote in response to Craig Daniel: I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you just did and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet nobody's doing it. It sort of looks like nobody cares. I understood ais523's judgement to mean that such scams could always be counterscammed by preventing some other aspect of the destruction before the 4 days of notice is up, e.g. by using Gerontocracy. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On 12/08/2013 11:44 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Fool wrote in response to Craig Daniel: I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you just did and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet nobody's doing it. It sort of looks like nobody cares. I understood ais523's judgement to mean that such scams could always be counterscammed by preventing some other aspect of the destruction before the 4 days of notice is up, e.g. by using Gerontocracy. Though from what I've seen and heard, nobody cares to stop this sort of thing either. This might feed into why nobody cares to do it in the first place. Speaking for myself, I prefer to have opponents. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:30 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: 00:53 tswett If a rule were to say if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then it is POSSIBLE to do Y, I think we would treat this as meaning something very different from if it is IMPOSSIBLE to do Y, then it is POSSIBLE to do X. (the last POSSIBLE was supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE, by the way.) I'm somewhat repeating myself here, but this is actually a really important thought experiment, as it's less clever wording and could happen by accident. If one rule said: Each player CAN do A by announcement. and another said: If a player CANNOT do B by announcement, then e CANNOT do A. I wouldn't say that each player can do B by announcement; rather, I'd say that no rule allows anyone to do B, so according to the second rule no one can do A, and there is a conflict to be resolved via normal means. Or perhaps to go further... Rule A says: Each active player is an eligible voter. Rule B says: If a player is second-class, then e is not an eligible voter. and Rule C says: Partnerships are second-class. There is a conflict between A and B about whether partnerships are eligible voters, but not between B and C about whether partnerships are second-class. This is nothing like classical logic. If in the ruleset does not mean →, it has directionality.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 10:24 -0400, Craig Daniel wrote:
The above is intended primarily to weigh in on the subject of the
success of Fool's scam. However, just in case it was buggy (case 2 or
4 above), I submit the following two promises:
{{
Title: I've had the time of my life
Text: I transfer 1 Yak to the casher
Cashing condition: Casher is a first-class player.
Destruction by author condition:
The promise titled and the life of my time CAN be destroyed by
its author with notice.
}}
{{
Title: and the life of my time
Text: I transfer 1 Yak to the casher
Cashing condition: Casher is a first-class player.
Destruction by author condition:
Either the titled I've had the time of my life CANNOT be destroyed
by its author with notice, or the author of this promise can cause the
rules to repeal themselves by announcement.
}}
Because these promises no longer have much of a use (they were used for
a one-off counterscam), and yet Teucer cannot easily destroy them, I
cash these promises.
They're actually mostly not for counterscam purposes, as I don't claim
they actually have any scammy effect. (Rather, I claim that their
destroyability is paradoxical, and therefore I ought to be able to get
a win by paradox in the near future. I'm mildly surprised Fool didn't
think of this first, but e was too focused on the dictatorship
interpretation.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were circular and therefore meaningless. –Machiavelli, whose dash seems to be rather short at the moment
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
I was looking at it more like a stack than a circle but then again stack is more of a magic the gathering thing though it does work in this case On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were circular and therefore meaningless. –Machiavelli, whose dash seems to be rather short at the moment
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the promises and then (allegedly) deregistered everyone else; now it doesn't matter what happens to the promises, because Fool's already finished. The fact that destroying one promise changes matters with regards to the other promise also doesn't really matter; the question is whether each promise could be destroyed right now, not whether each promise could be destroyed after the other one I'd destroyed. -Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: Arguments: I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. I agree that 00:53 tswett If a rule were to say if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then it is POSSIBLE to do Y, I think we would treat this as meaning something very different from if it is IMPOSSIBLE to do Y, then it is POSSIBLE to do X. and that therefore, we should not treat Agora's ruleset as a set of axioms. However, I don't think this is actually divorced from logic somehow - e.g. I think that a CFJ on whether Fool CAN deregister everyone would have still been FALSE, and don't think that adding an indirection in the form of a definition, which would seem to require some form of logic (e.g. Fool uses Curry's paradox to establish that e is a Yak Master, then creates some Yaks) would change anything. Actually, a simple way to model this in formal logic, which I did not think of (doh), is to make the statements in the rules primitive inference rules rather than axioms. Registrar(p) ⊢ YakMaster(p) # definition Player(p) ⊢ CanDeregister(p) # mechanism This gets more complicated in the presence of self-contradictory statements and the default deny rule: ~CanDoX(p) ⊢ CanDoX(p) # bad rule [can't prove CanDoX(p)] ⊢ ~CanDoX(p) # ??? this shouldn't exist ⊥ CanDoY(p) so it may be required to use more power than inference rules in some unusual situations, but it's a reasonable general framework.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523
ok we can attack this from either side and still arrive at the same conclusion though you have to admit that timing of moves is a key element of gaming On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the promises and then (allegedly) deregistered everyone else; now it doesn't matter what happens to the promises, because Fool's already finished. The fact that destroying one promise changes matters with regards to the other promise also doesn't really matter; the question is whether each promise could be destroyed right now, not whether each promise could be destroyed after the other one I'd destroyed. -Machiavelli
