DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9102-9110
On 4/30/24 02:43, wunst via agora-business wrote: >> 9102~ juniper 1.0 An Overpowering Proposal > AGAINST >> 9103~ juniper 1.0 Dictator Takes the Quorum > AGAINST >> 9104~ snail 1.0 Stamp Raffle fix > FOR >> 9105~ snail 1.0 Stamp Raffle Repeal > AGAINST >> 9106* snail...[1] 3.0 No Overpowered Deputizations > AGAINST This isn't just a response to wunst, because I see a lot in this particular distribution, but could I plead with people to explain *why* they vote against something? In my opinion it's a courtesy to the author so they get feeback that isn't just a rejection. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
I object.
Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
owner is ambiguous.
The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
that is in abeyance.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message):
>
>1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library.
>2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
>3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay.
>4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
>5) ais523 cashes Promise Q.
>
> Promise Q is irrevocable (so ais523 cannot take it via "The creator of
> a promise CAN"), and would cause ais523 to grant emself a promise
> "Awakening".
>
> CFJ 4075: "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q, either by directly cashing it, or
> by transferring it from the Library to emself and then cashing it."
>
> CFJ 4076: "I CAN cash the promise 'Awakening'."
>
> There is no reason to believe that #1 failed. The question is whether
> the remaining steps succeed in creating a paradox. Possible
> interpretations:
>
>a) #2 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #3 succeeds,
> then #4 fails (the Library no longer owns Promise Q),
> then #5 fails (ais523 no longer owns Promise Q), contradiction.
>
>b) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #5 succeeds (ais523 owns Promise Q via #4), contradiction.
>
>c) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #5 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q).
>
> Either a) or b) leads to judgements of PARADOXICAL, whereas c) leads to
> judgements of FALSE. So now the question is whether this text from Rule
> 217 (Interpreting the Rules) rules out c):
>
>Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
>using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
>can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
>rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
>is true.
>
> I accept the caller's argument that it does, and was intended to do so
> (to block more malicious situations such as "if I don't have a
> dictatorship then a paradox arises").
>
> I judge 4075 PARADOXICAL.
> I judge 4076 PARADOXICAL.
>
> For completeness, here's some research on past successful paradoxes,
> though none of it appears to set an obviously relevant precedent.
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged PARADOXICAL:
>
>* CFJ 3907 ("I pledge to violate this pledge")
>
>* CFJ 3901 (a promise granting and cashing a copy of itself, after
> which Rule 2618 was amended to block such recursion)
>
>* CFJ 3828 (a rule assigning an asset to an ambiguous player, after
> which Rule 2576 was amended to transfer such assets to the L&FD)
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged UNDECIDABLE (and pre-dating the Rule 217
> text above, which was added by Proposal 7584 in August 2013):
>
>* CFJs 3249 and 3334 (self-reference via conditions attached to
> promises)
>
>* CFJ 3240 ("'Ozymandias has won' has the same truth value as this
> statement", where Ozymandias had not won)
>
>* CFJ 3234 ("ehird is capable of evoking the power of UNDEAD", where
> nothing obviously defined that one way or the other)
>
>* CFJs 3212 and 3220 (self-reference regarding the legality of
> claiming the CFJ's statement)
>
>* CFJ 3087 ("The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can..."
> while Agora was defined as a player)
>
>* CFJ 2878 (similar to 3212 and 3220)
>
>* CFJ 2650 (separate clauses of Rule 2166 stating "this asset is
> owned by the L&FD" and "this asset can't be transferred", despite
> Rule 2240 which did exist at the time)
>
>* CFJ 2543 (self-reference involving ADoP report including
> report-last-published dates)
>
>* CFJ 2469 (Curry's paradox: "if this statement is true, then ais523
> can win by announcement")
>
>* CFJ 2446 (direct liar paradox)
>
>* CFJ 2423 (ambiguous rule change)
>
>* CFJ 2115 (self-reference regarding the legality of judging it FALSE)
>
>* CFJs 1980 and 1982 (self-reference involving contract definitions)
>
>* CFJs 1883 and 1884 (question as statement, pre-dating the period when
> such CFJs were basically judged as "The answer to is yes")
>
>* CFJ 1787 (similar to 2115)
>
>* CFJ 780 ("X violated Y by Z", where X clearly violated some rule but
> not necessarily Y; these days we would probably ask for more info,
> then judge DISMISS if it wasn't produced promptly en
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:52 AM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I object. > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > owner is ambiguous. > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > that is in abeyance. > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message): > > > >1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library. > >2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN". > >3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay. > >4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN". > >5) ais523 cashes Promise Q. > (On the grounds of "Ship of Theseus" problem, wherein, the radiance stone had some qualities changed and the owner thereby became ambiguous, SHOULD have also gone straight into abeyance as the owner was equally ambiguous.) -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> that is in abeyance.
You cannot object to a judgment, but you can either file a Motion to
Reconsider or call a Moot on these CFJs. Here's the specifics of both:
{
Rule 911/55 (Power=1.7)
Motions and Moots
If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
not been entered into Moot, then:
- The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the
case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion
to Reconsider that CFJ.
- Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2
support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider
group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its
current judge.
When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open
again.
If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of
weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. When
this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once
authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public
confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid
options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is
resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
- AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
and cannot be entered into Moot again.
- REMAND: The case becomes open again.
- REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
judging.
}
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I object.
> > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> > owner is ambiguous.
> > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> > that is in abeyance.
>
> You cannot object to a judgment, but you can either file a Motion to
> Reconsider or call a Moot on these CFJs. Here's the specifics of both:
>
> {
> Rule 911/55 (Power=1.7)
> Motions and Moots
>
> If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
> not been entered into Moot, then:
>
> - The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the
> case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion
> to Reconsider that CFJ.
> - Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2
> support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider
> group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its
> current judge.
>
> When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open
> again.
>
> If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
> judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of
> weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. When
> this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once
> authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public
> confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
>
> For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid
> options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is
> resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
>
> - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
> and cannot be entered into Moot again.
>
> - REMAND: The case becomes open again.
>
> - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
> recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
> unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
> judging.
> }
>
> --
> nix
> Arbitor, Spendor
>
>
Ah, but that requires me becoming a player! Not at this time, trixy trixy
nixy!
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > I object. > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > owner is ambiguous. > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > that is in abeyance. This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self- defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the first transfer moved the promise to the L&FD – or in other words, this is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause there to not be a paradox". This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether there's a paradox!) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
Mostly just throwing fuel on the fire and poking things, for fun :) (That's why I'm not objecting officially.) Firstly, "Ownership" takes precedence (by power) over "Promises", and the actions happen in sequence, so Ownership takes precedence over Promises which attempts to change the owner of the promise. Whether or not the promise is cashed happens later in the sequence - even if the promise itself were to affect a switch or other gamestate when it was cashed, those switches would equally just become "indeterminate", thereby not producing a paradox, as no gamestate becomes undefined, the gamestate instead obtains "indeterminate" values, which are equally valid values that do not produce paradoxes. For example, even with Rice Plans, per "Switches", all the switches would have a definitive value of the last value they had had, or their default value. Agora requires clarity at all steps to function, and indeterminacy can set things in the platonic gamestate backwards, even if you don't notice, relying instead on ratification to operate. Not sure this is anything, but I also just noticed, [R217] "in particular, an absurdity [the paradox] that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false [the promise being taken or cashed] does not constitute proof that it is true." (Also of note: It is up to the Judge and the players what the CFJ outcome should be. This is not a platonic point, rather, it is subjective and open to persuasion and such. Therefore, this case can still be judged Paradoxical, even if no paradoxes are involved. Similarly, a CFJ with a paradox can be judged as not-Paradoxical.) On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:06 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I object. > > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > > owner is ambiguous. > > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > > that is in abeyance. > > This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there > were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self- > defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer > causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a > paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the > first transfer moved the promise to the L&FD – or in other words, this > is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause > there to not be a paradox". > > This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of > things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as > self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails > and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another > way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be > a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would > not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether > there's a paradox!) > > -- > ais523 > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9102-9110
On 4/29/24 22:30, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I vote as follows: >> 9102~ juniper 1.0 An Overpowering Proposal > AGAINST > > >> 9103~ juniper 1.0 Dictator Takes the Quorum > AGAINST As requested: I have voted against these because I don't want to incentivize trying to take recordkeeping offices for gameplay advantage (PM/Speaker are fine, of course) and because they don't match our standard wording conventions. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
