On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 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.
This inspired me to go grepping a bit. There indeed really isn't a
lot of reference to paradox before 2005, but here are a few hits:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:02:58 -0600 (CST)
From: c647...@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Re: BUS: Green Repeals Thoughts, Part 1
[...]
Action to be rewarded:
Getting more Players
Improving cultural life of Agora
Acquiring RL resources (computer space, programs, et. al.)
Clever ideas for Contests
Finding loopholes in Rules
Creating paradox
Gaining recognition from outside sources
[...]
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 14:08:44 PST
From: j...@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso)
Subject: BUS: Guidelines for Judging, revised
[...]
Your final judgement must be TRUE or FALSE. In cases where the statement
is logically neither true nor false (e.g. "this statement is false"), or is
irrelevant to Agora Nomic (e.g. "Pepsi is just as good as Coke"), or is not
allowed as a CFJ statement by the Rules (e.g. Rule 1431), you must Dismiss
the CFJ.
[...]
Rule 404/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Legality of Proposals
As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the
time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act
of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content.
It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules
or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be
applied.
History:
Created by Proposal 404, Sep. 3 1993
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:28:44 +0100 (MET)
From: Orjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox declaration
[...]
It should also be mentioned (for later occasions) that we Agorans have
taken a Pragmatic attitude to paradoxes. Even if a part of the Rules
should become self-contradictory, we do not consider that to affect the
remainder.
[...]
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 02:55:47 -0500
>From m...@spinoza.cokernel.org Fri Nov 22 01:55:49 2002
Subject: Re: DIS: Proto: General Rules Cleanup
Each provision of a rule that is self-contradictory shall be
deemed to be deconstructed and shall have no effect. The text
of such a provision shall not be removed from the rule; it
shall remain as a testament to the folly of binary opposition.
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 00:28:50 +1100 (EST)
From: Steve Gardner <gard...@sng.its.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: DIS: tooting your horn in 2003
And from the Agoran side, there's a strong love of paradox
and whimsicality in Agoran judgements that probably have no place in the
corporate world...
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:24:24 +0000
From: "Ken Evans" <cain...@hotmail.com>
Subject: DIS: Replies
As it appears that both Kolja's are the same
person, we appear to have a paradox. Whilst the entities were named
differently, problems may have arisen, but naming them both Kolja forces us
into a position of asserting that Kolja is a Player and Kolja is a Watcher.
As this cannot be the case, I assert that the Registrar's Report, coupled
with the order to globally change Klaus to Kolja, misrepresents the
game-state.
