On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I made a comic thing based on this problem of "decentralized Justice"
> especially when it comes to what is "right" and "wrong" in a more
> moral/ethical
> kind of way (what is "abuse" and what isn't for example).
> http://i.imgur.com/YulQDpf.png
>
> In fact, it could be applied to anything of the sort and since all Judges
> seem to have the same weight (there is no "more superior" Judge to
> tiebreak), any problem of this kind can devolve into an infinite loop, and it
> would be reasonable to do so, because you can just allude to your local
> Judge, which doesn't need to have the same code of morals/ethics for the same
> issue (for example, what is "abuse" or "fair play" or not) as that
> other judge.
>
> So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to throw
> cards ad infinitum.
>
> I find that to be a very uncomfortable problem, yet I feel stuck with it.
This has always been a feature of our system (and occasionally it's led to "card
storms" or some version of that, I'll dig up some examples at some point). And
it's not just with cards. If you have two factions who fundamentally disagree
on an underlying axiom, the factions can call repeat CFJs hoping the most recent
one gets assigned to a member of their faction.
This is what happened during the earliest crisis in Nomic World, the Lindrum
World
Crisis (I won't write about that because there are documents out there, but I
can
summarize separately if desired). When two groups disagree on some fundamental
underlying axiom, they can make two entirely internally self-consistent logic
systems arguing their point. There is no solution in formal logic.
The solutions come from principles of human law, not logic. Here are some:
1. Recognizing the primacy of the First Judge to be assigned an issue
(precedent).
If there's two equally compelling ideas, the first judge picks between them, and
the other faction accepts that it wasn't their turn to decide, but they'll get
plenty of turns themselves.
2. The appeals system serving as a "super judge", if the first judge isn't able
to convince enough people. Our current appeals system is the Moot, which
allows for
a majority vote to decide the issue.
3. Legislative clarity. Accept that there's a contradiction in the current
ruleset,
and pass a Rule saying "we resolve it this way, and amend the records as if this
way had been true before this proposal." An example of this is when we brought
in Partnerships-as-persons through a CFJ. You'll see 1691, 1684, 1622, and 1621
are all the same CFJ statement + appeals, as two factions fundamentally
disagreed.
Ultimately it was resolved by majority vote creating a new rule, so the "true
truth
value" of that statement prior to the new rule is not formally resolvable.
4. Converge the gamestate. Working together, each faction makes a series of
procedural steps that work under their own set of assumptions, with the end
product
of both series being the same. You end up agreeing on where you are, though
you might
forever disagree on how you got there. This is what happened in Lindrum World.
5. Of course, being a nomic, all of 1-4, as formal procedures, could be part
of the
breakage, in which case there's a meta agreement ("outside the game") to keep
playing
in a certain way. If this happens, arguably, you've done a true reboot and are
no longer "playing the same game of Agora", so hopefully it doesn't get that
far.
(That's what happened in Bnomic, though no reboot has lasted). I don't think
that's
happened here myself. There's a few players over time who have said that we've
really
done (5) while cloaking it in doing (4), so claim that we're "not really
playing Agora
anymore" (Kelly used to say that a lot).
Notice: these all, fundamentally depend on societal pressure, not formal
logic. So
if you approach the game solely from a formal logic perspective, it would
indeed be
permanently "uncomfortable". There's no formal logic for the societal pressure
to
let go of a decision that doesn't go your way, and move on, and if you can't
live with
it - that's what deregistration is for. In boardgame terms, it's equivalent to
"once
a house rule is decided, don't grouse about it for the rest of the game, and if
you
really can't stand it, don't perpetuate card storms or repeat CFJs, instead you
need
to leave the table"). During the Lindrum World crisis, many players just got
disgusted and left. Not a good outcome - it's just a game - so the societal
pressure
to not be such a jerk that other players are driven away is, generally, the
ultimate
guidance.
