> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to find the CFJ false.
I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it serves Agora better Good to not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. 天火狐 On 26 May 2017 at 15:25, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to > find the CFJ false. > > > On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote: > > I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the > official one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and > the main argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the > statement is TRUE, Agora is > > ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is > FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me. > (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a > proposal, it and any gamestate > > changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to > gamestate" clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game > to become ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being > found true.) > > While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument > is an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it > currently stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ > system that the result of the > > case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the > conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran > framework for the future. > > > > Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with > the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and > potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not > limited to the > > aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to > ignore caller's evidence). > > > > 天火狐 > > > > PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show > that "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and > "Any ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be > unambiguous" together are very > > bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the > amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ > was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on > the subject of > > ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole. > > On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > > I judge this as FALSE. > > Rule 1698/4: > > 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. > > > > If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause > > Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to > > exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary > > notwithstanding. If any other single change to the gamestate > > would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to > > cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the > > contrary notwithstanding. > > > > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are > created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it > is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE. > > > > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from > game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the > players of Agora." > > On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: > > "Every statement is ambiguous." > > > > I present the following argument as caller's evidence: > > * Every statement is written in one language. > > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. > > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language > the statement was not originally written in. > > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and > recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439). > > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. > > > > 天火狐 > >
