Sherlock wrote:
Also, two questions for Goethe: if the original paradox was
by appeal, (1) do you think it would work and (2) would it
convince you to re-register?
The motivation seems pretty clear.
My reply suggested that sending one of the several cfj's to the
appeals court, in the name of having three justices, conferring using
reason rather than a coin toss, sort out the conflicting opinions,
was a reasonable use of the appeals court. It is quite possible
that it would result in your judgement being sustained. I made
it clear that my reason for "deregistering" the second time was that
I just didn't feel comfortable playing in a game where I felt the
players were playing against the rules, and that the appeals process,
whatever decision it came was a reasonable procedure to ensure that the
judgements and proposal were reconciled within the rules, and
reasonable enough to make me feel comfortable (eventually) re-joining.
It wasn't a quid-pro-quo for a particular decision.
This is how a judicial system should function (exceedingly fine,
and all that). And if we have to go the coin-toss route, I would
prefer trial by combat.
-Goethe
