This is IRRELEVANT to the game state now and should be so judged

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> The below CFJ is 3836.  I assign it to Murphy.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3836
>
> ===============================  CFJ 3836  ===============================
>
>       The above CFJ statement is about the possibility of a game action
>       so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a judgement of
>       PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days.
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> Caller:                        R. Lee
>
> Judge:                         Murphy
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by R. Lee:                                 16 May 2020 00:29:54
> Assigned to Murphy:                               [now]
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> The "above CFJ statement", which is the statement for CFJ 3835:
> (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3835)
>
>     It is both possible and true that a rule named "A coin award" took
>     the game action of increasing the number of coins R. Lee owned by 1.
>
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> I will simply link the two CFJs that provide all relevant context for these
> two CFJs:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3828
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3832
>
> These two cases include sufficient arguments and summaries of the facts
> involved that you can decide this case. I don't think I need to
> provide/rehash any other arguments or evidence to avoid insufficiency.
> The only thing I'd like to add is that irrelevant is not an appropriate
> judgement on the first CFJ because it is relevant to whether or not I have
> a legal obligation. Also the first CFJ is clearly about the possibility of
> a game action due to its phrasing that specifically includes those
> elements.
>
> ==========================================================================
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Reply via email to