On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I CFJ:
> > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
> game}
> > >
> > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
> provide
> > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And the
> > CFJ
> > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go looking
> > (I'm
> > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned, so
> no
> > > need to look for that either)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> "CFJ
> > about the legality or possibility of a game
> > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be eligible to
> > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
> >
> > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest of
> > these words are eirs not mine)
> >
> > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have
> > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple
> > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't change
> > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
> >
> > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased
> > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule succeeded
> > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an
> > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it was
> > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?"
> I'd
> > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. To
> see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX COULD
> do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved messing
> with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did* so
> and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
> about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably had
> that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
> materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
> question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule COULD
> have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to figure
> out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
>
> Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
> depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided to do
> something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a legality.
> However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers to
> the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't clear
> enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given the use
> of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and permissibility
> tend to go together.
>
> Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did happen
> are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in this
> case, where one of the questions results in paradox and the other doesn't.
> The rule could do everything that it might have done; the question of it
> actually did so is irresolvable without paradox. I respectfully opine that
> the court should rule FALSE.
>
> -Aris
>
This is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. The statement for CFJ
3828 was really three statements. If any were FALSE, the CFJ would be FALSE.
1: A recent rule called "A coin award" was enacted. For it to be enacted,
it needs to have been possible to enact this rule. Although the paradox
does not arise from this proposition, the proposition being present in the
CFJ still makes the CFJ "about" a possibility.
2: [The rule] increased the number of coins R. Lee owned by one. For this
to happen, it needs to have been POSSIBLE for the rule, with the specific
text as enacted, to have awarded a player a coin. This is about the
possibility not of ANY rule giving a player a coin (trivially possible) but
the possibility of THIS rule giving a player a coin, which led directly to
the paradox.\\
3: The rule repealed itself. It was only POSSIBLE for the specific rule, as
written, to repeal itself if it did in fact award a player one coin. This
is basically nested with proposition two.
It's true as Aris says that "possibility" implies a question about the
power of the agent. The problem with his argument is that the agent
referred to is the rule "A coin award" which had the exact same power as
any other rule: the ability to do what its actual text commands and no more.
I agree with Aris that "Legality" probably means whether an action is legal
or illegal, and do not base the contention that I won on that ground. I
would not use the statutory canon of noscituur a sociis, because it is
overused in actual law, and I do not think canons like it apply to
unambiguous words like "legality"which I think means as Aris suggests.
--
>From R. Lee
