On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they > should > > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to > > sustain the judgement. > > Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good), and > R217 really isn't/shouldn't be used as a set of factors in a legal test. > > The first paragraph simply describes the tone and tenor of reasoning we > like to use in judgement, in particular just to suggest (without > requiring) that we try to remain relatively consistent (use of game > custom/past judgements), to imply that if you reach an absurd result using > logical formalism or other procedural logic on texts, you're allowed to > short-circuit that with some common sense (in other words, that we resolve > textual arguments "not like robots"), and finally to be clear that the > goal of judgement is not to, say, crater the game with paradox, but to > keep the game enjoyable, fair etc. (i.e. "the good of the game"). It > doesn't need to be used as a factor checklist. Your first judgement > followed those guidelines without explicitly spelling them out, IMO. > > The second paragraph is partly to diffuse/limit paradox judgements, and in > general is explicit defense against different types of specific > definitional scams that have been used over time (with the unfortunate > side-effect of requiring definitions to be higher-powered than they might > otherwise need to be). > > -G. > > I actually didn't read rule 217 before writing this. I think the 217 that I remember was more "hard" with the factors and didn't use the word "augmented". -- >From R. Lee
