On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 00:53 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> the duration of this message I will fail to interpret the first
> paragraph of rule 2110 as recommended by section (2) of rule 754.
Well, that has you legally covered for breaking a SHOULD, I think.
> I subsequently interpret that same paragraph as in the English language,
> which is that rule 2110 defines a tortoise as a subset of inquiry cases
> on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action for which the
> question of veracity is UNDECIDEABLE. I then notice that, given this
> interpretation, the word initatiator has no defined meaning in the
> context. Based on the common use of initiator within the rules, I
> interpret it as the initator of the action, which in this case can refer
> only to the win announcement, as it is the only action mentioned.
I don't believe that this interpretation is possible. The only word
whose definition is under dispute here is "is", as to whether it means
the Agoran "is defined as" in this case, or "is the same as" (the
definition you're using here). Your definition would imply that a
real-life tortoise was a sort of inquiry CfJ; and it therefore violates
rule 991 because a real-life tortoise is not a procedure to settle a
matter of controversy. (Using the same argument twice, and interpreting
rule 991 so that a CfJ describes a real-life judicial case, fails
because real-life judicial cases are unfortunately not a sort of
reptile.) Just because you're complying with rule 754 doesn't
automatically make the definition comply with all the other rules...
> Furthermore, supported by evidence from multiple sources, I note that
> the eggs of Galápagos tortoises hatch between December and March. Since
> the latter weeks of February fall within this range, I claim that, on
> the balance of probabilities, it is, for all intents and purposes,
> certain that a tortoise was born between February 15th and February
> 28th, 2009.
I actually spent about 10 minutes looking up population estimates of
tortoises (what's the chance that none of them laid eggs), but it seems
likely that there is in fact a tortoise between two and four weeks old.
However, unfortunately none of them are intended to resolve Agoran
controversies...
> This is a win announcement, announcing that, for reasons specified
> above, there exists a tortoise that has continuously been a tortoise,
> for a period no greater than four and no less than four weeks, and as a
> result I satisfy the Winning Condition of Paradox.
Fails, you typoed "two" as "four". I believe it would have failed
anyway, though.
> To meet my obligations to the cleanup procedure for the Winning
> Condition of Paradox, I submit the following proposal named {Fix 754},
> Adoption Index 3:
>
> ========================================================================
> Amend rule 754 by replacing the first instance of {SHOULD} with {SHALL}.
> ========================================================================
Oh no, this really doesn't fix the situation. Don't obligate people to
interpret a rule a certain way; instead, make it so that that
interpretation is true. (Incidentally, I've been warning of the dangers
of applying SHOULD to inanimate objects, interpretations, or pretty much
anything but actions, for quite a while now, at least on IRC.)
