On 3/2/2020 3:45 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>> I think this would cause: >>> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its >> "undecidable" >>> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins >>> >> >> My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge >> DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation >> instead. >> > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) We used to have a category called UNDETERMINED for this kind of thing, and at the time it had an explicit clause in the end that said "can't just throw up your hands if the rules are unclear": > > * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or > too vague, or if the information available to the judge is > insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and > UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as > to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute > insufficiency of information for this purpose >
When we turned this (back) into DISMISS we deleted the clause, but just kept up the habit I guess? However, note that this says "don't judge UNDETERMINED based on uncertainty in *interpretation* of the rule". I think it's a different situation to say "This rule's interpretation is completely clear - it sets a quantity to something that's literally IMPOSSIBLE to determine but it's really clear that it's doing that" and maybe DISMISS is ok for that. -G.
