On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > > > Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about > > > rule > > > 2358? Why not just change that? > > > > Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of > > paradoxes as causing fundamental logical indeterminacy, and might have > > to be changed if this CFJ finds otherwise, paradoxes don't depend on > > Rule 2358. > > > > In the spirit of absurd literalism I point out that my question asked about > certain CFJs and not directly about paradoxes :) > > Paradoxes don't arise spontaneously, nor do they CFJ themselves. Conversely, > the most recent CFJ doesn't refer to any alleged paradox in the ruleset or > associated gamestate. These all involve player actions, and presumably players > have reasons.
Some history: >From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless. I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before my time). R2358 didn't exist. In 2005, we were playing "cards". As a defense card, one card had retroactive application (it could cancel any recent play). It was used to cancel out the play that led to it being obtained to play. It was done because it could be, and hadn't been done, and because the original Nomic rules said that creating a paradox ended the game. We didn't know what to do: until a proposal papered over the problem, I (the recordkeepor for cards) tracked to separates states of the game (where the card had been played and where it hadn't). Someone suggested we just had to start Agora II. Players thought it was cool enough (in that particular instance, where it was a really clear retroactive application) to add it as a win condition. That led to lots lots more "purely verbal" attempts to win this way (e.g. CFJing on "this statement is false" etc.) and the rule was constantly tweaked. If R2358 were repealed it would probably cut back on such things drastically, but not eliminate the possibility of logical paradoxes cropping up (impossible to do that in a self-referential algorithmic system). The current case isn't really the same sort of "win attempt", IMO. I think it's just re-discovering (or re-interpreting according to current Agoran rules and play) the original legal conundrum that led Suber to invent Nomic. Probably worth doing that once in an Agoran generation or so! -G.
