status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3907 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3907 =============================== I have violated one of the quoted pledges. ========================================================================== Caller: Gaelan Judge: Aris Judgement: PARADOXICAL ========================================================================== History: Called by Gaelan: 25 May 2021 19:31:51 Assigned to Aris: 28 May 2021 00:12:08 Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris: 05 Jun 2021 21:46:27 ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: > On May 22, 2021, at 5:45 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On May 22, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business >> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour. >> >> (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? >> Right???? But I can't find it, so let's find out) >> >> Gaelan > > wait, oops: I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one day. > > Gaelan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Aris's Arguments: Gaelan pledged "I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one day." (Eir other pledge, which may or may not exist, is substantively equivalent for the purposes of this CFJ.) A day passed. Did Gaelan violate this pledge? There are two possibilities. 1) Gaelan created a pledge that refers to itself, causing an infinite loop. In this case, the CFJ is PARADOXICAL. 2) Gaelan's purported pledge does not properly specify actions to perform or refrain from performing, since determining the actions results in an infinite loop. In this case, the CFJ is DISMISS. Another way of looking at it is that this all depends on whether the action can have a parameter. In other words, can I pledge, for all Y "I pledge to take an action X, such that X accomplishes Y"? Can I never pledge this? Or can I only pledge this if it's clear what sort of X accomplishes Y? This is determinative because Gaelan's pledge can be translated to "I pledge to take an action X, such that X violates this pledge". I think it's clear that "I pledge to not violate the rules" is a valid pledge. We have a reasonably clear notion of what sorts of things violate the rules. I think it's equally clear that, as G. pointed out, "I pledge that the sun will rise tomorrow" is invalid, given that the sun rising is not an action taken by any Agoran (unless Helios happens to be a player). The question in this case is, would the pledge "I pledge not to do anything that would cause the sun not rise is valid" be valid? That's harder to figure out. "But Aris," you say, "you haven't looked at the text. Surely the text solves this problem and you're just making things more complicated than they need to be." Alright, let's look at the text. Rule 2450/10, "Pledges", says "If a consenting Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge is ILLEGAL". One thing is certain: pledges must be clear. Unfortunately, this doesn't resolve the case. The relevant question is whether the "certain actions" must be clear. That is, do I need to know the specific actions that would violate the pledge, or merely the categories of actions that might. The text can be read either way. Textually, I would say that these interpretations are equally plausible. Can we resolve this problem through game custom? If we error trap anything that can cause a paradox, we will have no paradoxes. Does game custom say this is a good or a bad thing? The answer is unfortunately rather mixed. For many years, Agora had a way to win by paradox. In such a system, I would guess that while people tried to prevent paradoxes, they would be tolerant of the notion that they might arise anyway. Then that win method was repealed. Agora went through a period where paradoxes didn't help anything, simply making the state of the game more confusing. In this period, judges avoided paradox wherever possible. Then, we reenacted wins by paradox. Now, it is culturally unclear whether paradoxes are to be avoided or embraced in judicial interpretation. However, there is one norm that is abundantly clear. Actions cannot be structured to be paradoxical in and of themselves: if an action is specified in a way that resolves to an infinite loop, it is not taken at all. For instance, "If this sentence is false, I..." doesn't work. When taken, an action must be fully and completely specified. One final point about game custom. While it is not necessarily the most persuasive factor, Agorans in general take a fairly math/logic/programming view of the game. In this view, allowing things to be defined parametrically seems natural. Nevertheless, I do not feel this is a strong enough basis that it determines the result of the case. If game custom does not resolve the matter, is there another guide? Let's look at the best interests of the game. At first, I avoided looking at the best interests of the game when conducting this analysis. After all, it seems fairly unclear whether allowing paradoxes to arise is in the best interests of the game. Are they fun or destructive? However, there is another way of applying the best interests of the game. It is indisputably in the best interests of the game for interpretation to be congruent with the spirit of the rules. If we assumed that all paradoxes were impossible, we wouldn't have a PARADOXICAL verdict or wins by paradox. Pledges aren't error trapped in the same way other things are. The action specified by a pledge isn't a final action being taken by a player, it's an abstract specification of what sorts of things a player is or isn't allowed to do. We do allow paradoxes when something isn't error trapped and an infinite loop can be created. Given all that, I conclude that pledges can be parametric and Gaelan's pledge was validly specified. This case is PARADOXICAL. I have some final notes. First, we need to resolve the cultural dissonance between a model that is built to accept paradoxes and one that is built to avoid them. Note that neither of these models suggest that we should go around legislating in a way that causes paradoxes. The question is more how high a standard judges should apply before deciding that things really are just paradoxical. Currently, Agora doesn't seem to have made up its mind, and that can't go on. I will also say that I am not at all convinced that this CFJ provides grounds for a win by paradox. Is this a "a CFJ about the effectiveness, possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate"? I'd guess no, but that's a CFJ in itself. Finally, if you disagree with my ruling, feel free to discuss. I wouldn't mind if such a close case led to a moot (or even a reconsideration, if you can convince me I got this wrong). ==========================================================================