I think I can miss a nap to provide arguments for what is likely the most important CFJ in game history. :)
Arguments: The rules are, for game purposes, omnipotent. In coming together to play this game, we do something amazing. We create reality. When I say I give someone a shiny, it is not my intent merely to have everyone pretend that I have given a shiny. It is my intent to actually give that person a shiny. All players eventually come to believe that there is a "platonic" reality that they affect with their game actions. That's a major part of why I play. If "reality" disagrees with the rules, there is a very real sense in which reality is wrong. The fact that we can change something by agreeing upon it is truly amazing. On the site it says that many players view Agora as "an experiment in philosophy, political science, and group dynamics, rather than just a game". I do, and the biggest part of the experiment for me is that we change our vision of reality by passing a proposal. The fact that we can change what we believe is an exhilarating experience. Changing what one belives is not generally easy, but we've all agreed that Agora means something and that the rules are true, and that's truly special. I feel so strongly about this point that I somewhat regret bringing it up, because I'm terrified that the ruling might be that I'm wrong. If so, I don't really know what I would do. I might deregister, I might moot, I might keep on playing and just not believe the CFJ (they aren't inherently binding). I humbly request that your honor does not rule that the rules as a whole can be wrong. This is a point so basic that it cannot be proven using rule text, for obvious reasons. If you want to rule that you are restricted to interpreting rule text, and want to stick to the requirements that the rules are "unlimited in scope", have the "capacity to govern the game generally", and that "when interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence" then that's fine. If you want to rule that the point is non-falsifiable, or is a matter of personal interpretation, and is therefore out of scope, then that's also fine. I submit to you however, that a ruling that the rules as a whole couldn't do something would be along the same lines as a judge ordering that a section of eir constitution was unenforceable because it was wrong. You would be attempting to use the power of the rules (as a judge) to take away power from the rules themselves. In taking away the absolutely binding status of the rules, you would, in my opinion, strip the game of meaning. The other aspects of the case are irrelevant by comparison. I would suggest the resolution that the destruction of the universe would be irrelevant to gameplay, because the rules and that which they define would continue to exist platonically in the void (ideas don't need the universe or physical reality to function). The only issue is that the destruction of the universe could be interpreted as also destroying the players. Whether this would trigger Rule 1698 is a matter of how you interpret the definition of ossification: "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." What is the effect of an action that makes it impossible for there to be any players? It's somewhat ambiguous if Rule 1698 bars the deregistration/destruction of the last player, or only really has meaning if there are players. My suggested resolution is that the rule does indeed bar the elimination of players, because that would make it impossible for them to take actions, thus making it possible to do what is described. This position is supported by common sense and the interests of the game, which disfavor actions likely to cause the game's effective nonexistence and permanent stasis, which is after all what Rule 1698 is specifically designed to prevent. However, I would not necessarily disagree with an alternate interpretation. -Aris On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or >> >> AP-CFJ >> >> if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there were >> >> currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the >> >> universe >> >> by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I >> >> announced that >> >> I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of the gamestate >> >> being >> >> as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the game is concerned, >> >> have >> >> the effect it purported to have." >> > >> > This is CFJ 3580. I assign it to G. >> > >> > [note to Aris: despite yesterday's discussion, while I believe a judge >> > would >> > not be *wrong* in finding this case irrelevant, I am in fact quite >> > interested >> > in the philosophical underpinnings, so I "favored" it and and I plan to >> > give >> > it a full consideration as per your request. I don't actually know where >> > I'll >> > end up with it at the moment]. >> > >> >> Thank you. I want to provide arguments, but it may take a few days. >> There is one point that I feel very very strongly about (either the >> rules are omnipotent or, alternately, the issue is out of scope), and >> I have a few suggestions about how to deal with everything else. > > Hi Aris, > > I pretty much need to write this one up tomorrow or I won't get to it before > the deadline, just a friendly warning if you still feel "very very strongly" > about stuff! (I think I know where I'm going with it so don't feel obliged, > but of course I'll study & consider anything provided). > > -G. > > >
