Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On 5/27/23 14:39, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: >> Thus, we reach that third interpretation: we are consenting to that rice >> plan obtaining or not obtaining your signature. You consent to the change, >> the action that occurs, or you reaffirm consent that inaction is >> acceptable: that no change is acceptable. > Ok, the more I read this, honestly, the worse it gets. It implies > that continual silence equals consent (in direct contradiction with > CFJ 4013) and moreover, completely contradicts what "consent" means > for contracts (with respect to withdrawal) with no suggestion that > such a difference is textual in the Rice rule. If consent is taking > to be continuously evaluated like this as some kind of "standing > action", what exactly prevents people from withdrawing from "binding" > contracts at any time? > > -G. See also CFJ 3583 (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3583), in which Judge [nix] found that consent cannot be inferred from silence, and one must be able to point to a specific instant of consent. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > Thus, we reach that third interpretation: we are consenting to that rice > plan obtaining or not obtaining your signature. You consent to the change, > the action that occurs, or you reaffirm consent that inaction is > acceptable: that no change is acceptable. Ok, the more I read this, honestly, the worse it gets. It implies that continual silence equals consent (in direct contradiction with CFJ 4013) and moreover, completely contradicts what "consent" means for contracts (with respect to withdrawal) with no suggestion that such a difference is textual in the Rice rule. If consent is taking to be continuously evaluated like this as some kind of "standing action", what exactly prevents people from withdrawing from "binding" contracts at any time? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:46 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:46 AM Forest Sweeney > wrote: > > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > > What rules mechanism enabled you to do this? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. I consent to all rice plans that will not be harvested. (That is clearly stated, and there is no wiggle room: I am shaving all barbers who do not shave themselves. Under clause 4 of R2519, it is now reasonably clear which rice plans I have consented to, however, it is the harvest itself that presents the paradox, not my consent. Thanks G and Aspen for your help!) fre. 26. mai 2023, 3:52 p.m. skrev Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>: > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will > not be harvested. > (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I > may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.) > > Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering > Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable". > > -- > 4st > Referee & Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:44 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/26/23 18:06, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:18 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> On 5/26/23 14:14, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >> Now, it is sufficient to determine whether "that Rice Plan having
> >> that
> >> player's Signature" is an action or not. I'd say that it is a
> >> regulated
> >> action, fitting all three criteria for regulated actions: the rules
> >> have
> >> said how it occurs, whether it succeeds, and it affects gamestate
> the
> >> Ricemastor must track.
> > Again, it's not an action, it's a property or a state of affairs.
> I disagree here. The judgement could wordsmith this critical point a
> bit better, but it's perfectly reasonable within the bounds of the
> rule text and common sense to say that going from "not having a
> signature" to "having a signature" is a change (an action) that
> happens with consent.
>
> -G.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that a change from not signing to signing is an action.
> >>>
> >>> I disagree that the text can be construed to evaluate "consent" with
> >>> respect to that. The text doesn't suggest that to me at all, and it
> >>> would be continuously evaluating "consent" ("as long as e is
> >>> consenting") for an instantaneous change.
> >>>
> >> Sure, absolutely - I can see either reading, and I'm not sure rn
> >> whether my first-blush intuitive take holds up under scrutiny - not
> >> currently convinced in either direction.
> >>
> >> Judge 4st,
> >>
> >> I think the above short exchange really narrows the scope of the CFJ
> >> to the critical point of contention - does the specific text support
> >> "granting consent" (by the methods in the Consent rule) as a trigger
> >> for going from "without signature" to "with signature", or not? And
> >> to be clear, we know the opinion of the officer is that e thinks that
> >> it does (and that, as rule author e *intended* it to be true). But
> >> intent in rules-writing doesn't count if the rule text doesn't support
> >> it, except perhaps as a (very low weight) tiebreaker. So it's not a
> >> question of whether the officer recorded it that way (that's a post
> >> hoc fallacy), but whether the officer's opinion is correct.
> >>
> >> -G.
> >>
> > G/Janet, with regard to the officer opinion or not, I have to judge
> whether
> > "some players have rice", that is what the judgement is called upon,
> which
> > is why I'm trying to include a short statement so that I don't have to
> redo
> > all of the ricemastor's work otherwise. If that is insufficient, then I
> > judge this case INSUFFICIENT trivially, on the belief as it shouldn't
> have
> > been assigned to anyone.
> > Oh, I'll just judge it insufficient anyway, that doesn't hurt
> anything...?
> >
> > Evidence:
> > Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
> > The Rice Game
> >
> > The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
> > Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
> > players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
> > if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
> > Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
> > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
> > consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
> > has created by announcement.
> >
> > A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> > - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
> > Rice Plan is Harvested.
> > - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures,
> > the one that was created earliest is Harvested.
> > - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> > And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
> >
> > Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having
> > no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these
> > lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list.
> > When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice
> > Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each
> > player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then
> > e lose 1 Rice.
> >
> > If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2
> > Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins
> > the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in
> > this manner three times, this rule repeals itself.
> >
> > Rule 2519/2
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > That said, a > new rule that has a "new" sort of toy - like Rice Plans - is a good > potential target, but I'm pretty sure this attempt missed the mark. Followup: Importantly, just recently, in CFJ 4013, I judged that "consent" as a general concept (not just the rules-defined version) is only inferred by positive evidence - the burden of proof is to show that consent was given. So if Rice Plans are taken to work via an unregulated form of consent, any ambiguity still errs on the side of "no consent" (unless the precedent is overturned, of course): Judge G. wrote: > Secondly, consent is an important social concept that shouldn't be > taken lightly. To the extent that Agora is a community as well as a > game, it is in the best interests of Agora that we (as much as the > rules allow) assert the general principle that silence does NOT equal > consent. [...] > Taking the position that silence != consent also means assuming that > uncertainty != consent. In many cases in Agora, we have legislated > away the law of excluded middle - just because something isn't true > doesn't mean it's false, it may be logically indeterminate. However, > in dealing with consent, we should generally avoid such logic and > maintain that a lack of clear consent means NO consent exists, at > least to the extent that the rules allow.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:34 AM Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:52 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > > If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will > > not be harvested. > > (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I > > may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.) > > > > Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering > > Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable". > > I don't think this works? I mean, first off, there are all the reasons > why trying to make something conditional on the Reimann hypothesis > would just fail. You know, Rule 2518, and the precedents it is based > on, and all of that. But even if that part worked, this isn't > "logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other > irresovable logical situation". It's just something we don't know the > answer to, which would be DISMISS. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely > sure all of the past paradox wins have met this standard; though > they've definitely worked platonically in any case.) Any action that works through a person stating their actions (any announcement, etc.) would fail via our various standards of clarity, even the lowest standards like for registration - lots of precedents on that overall. So if a judgement on the above statement follows the precedents at all, it would just be thrown out as "fails to communicate - ambiguous" and whatever judgement that implies. In other words, for communicating any type of action attempt, Wittgenstein beats Plato. For the above statement, it fails both on the "Reimann" thing, and the "conditional relying on future states" thing. Paradoxes have worked when such paradoxes have ended up in rules text itself - if a rule text says "If the Reimann Hypothesis, then...", because the "text of the rules" takes precedence over CFJ standards of clarity, and because we explicitly defined "indeterminate" in the rules as a possible state rather than requiring judges to choose a determinate outcome (Plato reasserts emself!) Obviously most of those paradoxes were accidental confluences of multiple rules, not in-your-face ones like that. More paradoxes happened before we error-trapped indeterminacy for our main toys (assets and switches) in the rules, so if rules state an asset or switch *would* be indeterminate, the judgement on a statement angling for a paradox generally comes out "IRRELEVANT - it's in the L/default state now". Once you take out communication, assets, and switches, the scope for paradox is much more limited. That said, a new rule that has a "new" sort of toy - like Rice Plans - is a good potential target, but I'm pretty sure this attempt missed the mark. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:34 AM Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:52 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > > If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will > > not be harvested. > > (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I > > may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.) > > > > Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering > > Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable". > > I don't think this works? I mean, first off, there are all the reasons > why trying to make something conditional on the Reimann hypothesis > would just fail. You know, Rule 2518, and the precedents it is based > on, and all of that. But even if that part worked, this isn't > "logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other > irresovable logical situation". It's just something we don't know the > answer to, which would be DISMISS. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely > sure all of the past paradox wins have met this standard; though > they've definitely worked platonically in any case.) > > -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:52 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will > not be harvested. > (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I > may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.) > > Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering > Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable". I don't think this works? I mean, first off, there are all the reasons why trying to make something conditional on the Reimann hypothesis would just fail. You know, Rule 2518, and the precedents it is based on, and all of that. But even if that part worked, this isn't "logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable logical situation". It's just something we don't know the answer to, which would be DISMISS. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure all of the past paradox wins have met this standard; though they've definitely worked platonically in any case.) -Aris
