Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
G. wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, maybe I was channeling). Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've heard, I wouldn't know. I mean, yeah I did do subjective priors once. But I didn't inhale. Man, once you get started you just can't stop. Problem is you actually come to decisions one day, the you realize that Uniform just ain't doing it anymore and you need a heavy weighting hit. I could tell you tales about colleagues strung out on gammas, paralyzed with uncertainty, chains never converging, begging for "just one more" parameter... Phish!
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to omd
On Friday, June 28, 2013, Fool wrote: > > I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir >> vote." >> > > My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd > You have 24 hours. > -Dan FALSE. In many types of elections it is not possible to change one's vote, so here the ability to do so must be stated explicitly.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to FSX
Rule 113, while implying that forfeiture usually is a choice, does not appear to indicate that a person may not be forced to do it. The only thing it seems to imply is that you cannot prevent a person from doing it. Therefore, if a person is forced to forfeit, they have forfeited, and I judge this case TRUE. On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Fool wrote: > Goethe: >> >> CFJ: Blob has forfeited. >> > > 331 makes me assign it randomly to me or one of the people who voted on the > last proposal, excluding the caller. > > The last proposal was 347, on which 9 players voted. Goethe was one of them. > So was Blob. (hmm) > > I'll go ahead and roll a virtual 8-sided die on myself and the 7 others. It > comes up >FSX > > You have 24 hours. > > >> The rule in question (345) states: >> If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end >> of its voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the >> game. >> >> Note that the wording is a requirement placed on the player to act, not >> an automatic event. (Compare to the rejected proposal that stated a >> player would be "deemed to have forfeited"). >> >> R113 strongly implies that forfeiture is a choice (a conscious act at >> the control of the player in question). Therefore, the R345 states >> that Blob is now under the compulsion to deregister (i.e. e is violating >> this rule as long as he hasn't deregistered), but has not yet done so. >> >> -Goethe >> >> >
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to omd
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir vote." My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd You have 24 hours. -Dan Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules claim each player gets a single vote. Walker's initial vote should therefore have been his sole vote and nothing else he attempted should have counted as a vote. Thus, this proposal passed.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Michael
I the matter of the CFJ of Chuck's that I have been assigned to judge, I return a verdict of FALSE. Obviously, this agrees with Charles Walker’s recent judgement, but I also think he slightly misinterpreted the relevant rule, while simultaneously making perfectly reasonable decisions about our practice with respect to rule changes and when they are applied. So, I have some further comments to make. Importantly, the critical phrase in Rule 331 is >The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and >those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period >most recently ended Note in particular that this rule *doesn’t* say “the rule change most recently adopted”. Charles Walker’s judgement quite reasonably says that rule changes should be assumed to occur sequentially and as the Speaker announces their adoption. That’s a perfectly reasonable legal fiction, and not a precedent I seek to overturn (the consequences when it comes to resolving proposal actions are just too awful to contemplate). Instead we have to look at the ends of *voting periods*. By the *current* ruleset, when a bunch of proposed rule changes is distributed we have by Rule 333 that >The Speaker shall make one proposal distribution per 24 hours, >numbering and publishing the text of each proposal submitted >since the last distribution. This starts each such proposal's >prescribed voting period, which lasts 24 hours. In other words, the voting periods of proposals distributed simultaneously have the same starting point. This is because the action of making a proposal distribution (the “This” of the last sentence above) starts all of the proposals’ voting periods. Each such proposal has a voting period of the same length (24 hours), so must therefore end at the same time. Therefore, it is impossible to determine “the rule change whose voting period most recently ended” because there may be many such, and so there is an inherently undefined phrase in Rule 333. Moreover, this undefinedness has legal consequence because we need to have one proposal with which to calculate the set of eligible candidate Judges. As the caller says, this was relevant in the case at hand because different sets of people voted on different proposals within the same batch. **However**, the batch in question in this case was not submitted under Rule 333. Indeed, this batch was the one that created Rule 333. The rule was previously initial Rule 205, which said that the voting period of a proposal began when it hit the mailing list (not when the Speaker came to deal with it). This means that scshunt’s proposal really was the proposal whose voting period most recently ended, because that proposal appeared on the mailing list last. Michael On 27/06/13 21:11, Fool wrote: > On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote: >> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as >> Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a >> move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose >> legality cannot be determined with finality. > And I roll my virtual 8-sided die and assign this to. Michael. > You have 24 hours. > (Michael didn't vote on 341, but he did vote on 343, which closed before Chuck > raised this new CFJ. 344-347 close in about an hour, report then.) > -Dan >> Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd >> brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an actual >> or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the >> assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). >> Chuck >> -Original Message- >> From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On >> Behalf Of Fool >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM >> To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org >> Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker >> On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: >>> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a >>> Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined >>> with finality. >> By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the >> last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS >> IT??) >> My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours. >>> Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly >>> from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a >>> statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule >>> change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player >>> who invoked ju
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to FSX
Goethe: > > CFJ: Blob has forfeited. > 331 makes me assign it randomly to me or one of the people who voted on the last proposal, excluding the caller. The last proposal was 347, on which 9 players voted. Goethe was one of them. So was Blob. (hmm) I'll go ahead and roll a virtual 8-sided die on myself and the 7 others. It comes up FSX You have 24 hours. > The rule in question (345) states: > If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end > of its voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the > game. > > Note that the wording is a requirement placed on the player to act, not > an automatic event. (Compare to the rejected proposal that stated a > player would be "deemed to have forfeited"). > > R113 strongly implies that forfeiture is a choice (a conscious act at > the control of the player in question). Therefore, the R345 states > that Blob is now under the compulsion to deregister (i.e. e is violating > this rule as long as he hasn't deregistered), but has not yet done so. > > -Goethe > >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 27 June 2013 02:10, Fool wrote:
> On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
>>
>> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
>> for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
>> finality.
>
>
> By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the
> last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS IT??)
>
> My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours.
I'll get right to it: do rule changes occur simultaneously, or
sequentially? If they occur simultaneously, then this leads quickly to
paradox and undecidability. Thus it would seem that sequential
adoption is to be preferred in terms of the 'spirit' of the game,
although this is an admittedly ambiguous term. As players would not
miss out on much play by ending the game now, it could be argued that
the 'spirit' of the game might swing this judgement in either
direction. It may be that Agora XX encourages attempts to end the game
through paradoxes or undecidable statements. The game has obviously
not existed long enough to tell.
Fortunately, there is an additional guide to judgement in the form of
game custom, which judges are also bound to consider. I accept the
argument that Agora XX does not necessarily adopt the game customs of
Agora unless it explicitly chooses to do so. I do not, however, accept
the idea that Agora XX has no game custom of its own. It may have very
little, but already, with great subtlety, a custom of great importance
to the judgement of this case has been adopted. That is on the
awarding of points as if proposals took effect sequentially, in order
of their assigned number. The Speaker, as far as I can tell, adopted
this practice from the very first change to the points system and went
unchallenged and unCFJ'd until after the calling of this CFJ.
There is also an uncertainty about when exactly any rule change is
supposed to take effect which must be dealt with. Rule 210 states that
"An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the
completion of the vote that adopted it." When, we must ask, is the
completion of the vote? The end of the voting period, or the
announcement of the results by the Speaker? The rules provide no
particular guide as to the answer of this question, so we must turn
again to game custom and the spirit of the game. The only thing that
can be said here is that it would be damaging to the game for rule
changes to take effect before anyone other than the Speaker knows with
certainty whether the change has been adopted or not. If the
'completion of the vote' was at the end of the voting period, then
there would always be a period of time before the next Speaker's
report in which the state of the rules is unknown. So I rule that the
'completion of the vote' must be taken to mean the announcement of the
result. This is important because it allows for the interpretation
that actions in each message occur an instant after each other to
decide this case. As explained in arguments, then if this
interpretation is allowed then the adoption of proposals is not
simultaneous and therefore a set of players who are eligible to judge
a CFJ can be determined with finality. If rule changes were simply
adopted at the end of the voting period, then there is no room for
this interpretation.
In light of the above, the language of Rule 305 ("at the same time")
is irrelevant because it refers to the time at which the voting
periods end.
Ultimately, this case is about how we are supposed to interpret the
phrase "The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and
those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most
recently ended [...]" in the relevant Rule. A distinction has to be
made here that has recently been made in discussion of an Agoran CFJ:
do we interpret Rules like logicians, or like lawyers? Each of these
comes at the task differently. The logician aims simply for the truth,
however unpalatable. For the lawyer's view, I quote G./ Goethe in the
discussion of the Agoran case:
"I myself am arguing for the "lawyer's" standpoint here without being
trained in that way of thinking myself. To me, the 'lawyer's argument'
basically says "in reality, any deeming is a fiction (since time travel
isn't truly happening), so if the fiction creates a paradox, we choose
some way to get out of it, which may be wholly arbitrary (but hopefully
fair to all parties and the spirit of the law's intent[*]) the first
time, then later follows precedent." This also, not wholly incidentally,
is the way people typically deal with conflicts in "normal" board games.
This is not *supposed* to satisfy a logician, which is the point of
Suber's essays."
I side with G. here, but it could be said that there are simply two
different styles of playing nomic being talked about. You can play
logician's nomic and you can play lawyer's nomic. (Of course nomics,
including Agora
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to omd
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Fool wrote: > CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points. > > In most games, after a player loses or forfeits, e is no longer considered a player and can no longer make any type of move, and Rule 113 concurs with this in contrasting forfeiting with "continu[ing] to play". I rule that when a player forfeits, e ceases to be a player and, though this is less clearly supported, cannot reregister. FALSE.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Michael
It'll be interesting if Michael rules that this statement is FALSE, on the ground that the selection of a Judge for the earlier statement (and by extension, his own selection as Judge) can be shown to be illegal. On 27 June 2013 21:11, Fool wrote: > On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote: > >> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as >> Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a >> move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose >> legality cannot be determined with finality. >> > > And I roll my virtual 8-sided die and assign this to. Michael. > You have 24 hours. > > (Michael didn't vote on 341, but he did vote on 343, which closed before > Chuck raised this new CFJ. 344-347 close in about an hour, report then.) > > -Dan > > > >> Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd >> brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an >> actual >> or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the >> assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). >> >> Chuck >> >> -Original Message- >> From: agora-discussion >> [mailto:agora-discussion-**boun...@agoranomic.org] >> On >> Behalf Of Fool >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM >> To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.**org >> Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker >> >> On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: >> >>> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a >>> Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined >>> with finality. >>> >> >> By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the >> last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS >> IT??) >> >> My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours. >> >> >> >>> Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly >>> from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a >>> statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule >>> change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player >>> who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as >>> >> the statement's Judge. >> >>> >>> The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended >>> simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule >>> changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: >>> Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven >>> proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo >>> voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players >>> are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting >>> >> period most recently ended. >> >>> Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously >>> ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters >>> who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by >>> which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending >>> proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the >>> Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 >>> through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. >>> >>> [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a >>> "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that >>> does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all >>> adopted and thus became rule changes.] >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >> > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Michael
On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote: I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. And I roll my virtual 8-sided die and assign this to. Michael. You have 24 hours. (Michael didn't vote on 341, but he did vote on 343, which closed before Chuck raised this new CFJ. 344-347 close in about an hour, report then.) -Dan Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an actual or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). Chuck -Original Message- From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On Behalf Of Fool Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS IT??) My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours. Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting period most recently ended. Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all adopted and thus became rule changes.] Chuck
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an actual or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). Chuck -Original Message- From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On Behalf Of Fool Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: > I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a > Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined > with finality. By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS IT??) My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours. > > Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly > from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a > statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule > change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player > who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. > > The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended > simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule > changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: > Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven > proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo > voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players > are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting period most recently ended. > Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously > ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters > who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by > which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending > proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the > Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 > through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. > > [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a > "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that > does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all > adopted and thus became rule changes.] > > Chuck >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Steve
I judge that this statement is FALSE. R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established to be of use here. The spirit of this game seems to me to have two salient characteristics: (1) speed, and (2) heavy reliance on the Speaker to keep things moving along smoothly so that the blitz character of the game can be maintained. Therefore, we should be very cautious about opening the door to practices which impose non-trivial extra burdens on the Speaker. Since Roujo's statement makes all the votes e attempted to case conditional on the results of calculations to be performed by the Speaker, that is, tallying the votes already cast up to the moment of Roujo's message, it is my judgement that none of those attempted votes succeeded. On 27 June 2013 11:14, Fool wrote: > Why not! I call for judgement on: > > "Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message quoted > below." > > On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > >> I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have >> a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those. >> >> > Arguments: > He can only vote for or against (207). It makes sense to allow > conditionals but votes are hidden from him (207) so in this case the > condition cannot be resolved by him, even if I can resolve it. > > > By 331, I must randomly select a Voter on 341. My virtual 8-sided die > comes up > Steve. > > You have 24 hours. > > -Dan > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
On 26/06/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote: On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote: As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran tradition carries over to Agora XX. By the way, I'm not saying that my principle would necessarily hold in Agora - the ordering of the initial numberings would, but I don't think the ordering of "X time later" has been tested. I'm merely offering it as a possibility. It actually came up right off the bat with proposals 301 and 302 trying to amend 212 (which assigns points for proposals). I implicitly had 301 amend 212 first, then 301 acted to assign points for 301. Then 302 amended 301, then 302 acted to assign points for 302. Then 303 failed. Then 304 passed, then 302 acted to assign points for 304. Even though arguably they were all "simultaneous". I think I've been fairly consistent since, but I'm not so sure. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on forfeiture
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
("Forfeiture" isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player, retain voting, etc? Just seeking
clarification, no strong arguments either way).
-Goethe.
Argument: rule 113 already uses the word in opposition to to "continue
to play".
-Dan
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to omd
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
By 331, I must randomly select either myself or a voter on 341 (Goethe
was not one of them). My virtual 9-sided die comes up
omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
("Forfeiture" isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player, retain voting, etc? Just seeking
clarification, no strong arguments either way).
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Steve
Why not! I call for judgement on: "Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message quoted below." On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those. Arguments: He can only vote for or against (207). It makes sense to allow conditionals but votes are hidden from him (207) so in this case the condition cannot be resolved by him, even if I can resolve it. By 331, I must randomly select a Voter on 341. My virtual 8-sided die comes up Steve. You have 24 hours. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS IT??) My virtual 8-sided die comes up.. Walker again. You have 24 hours. Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting period most recently ended. Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all adopted and thus became rule changes.] Chuck
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory. Instant clarity. -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: > > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > > On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just > had a > > > flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, > > > maybe I was channeling). > > > > Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've > heard, I > > wouldn't know. I mean, yeah I did do subjective priors once. But I didn't > > inhale. > > Man, once you get started you just can't stop. Problem is you actually > come to > decisions one day, the you realize that Uniform just ain't doing it > anymore and > you need a heavy weighting hit. I could tell you tales about colleagues > strung > out on gammas, paralyzed with uncertainty, chains never converging, begging > for "just one more" parameter... > > > >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote: > > As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's > tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran > tradition carries over to Agora XX. > By the way, I'm not saying that my principle would necessarily hold in Agora - the ordering of the initial numberings would, but I don't think the ordering of "X time later" has been tested. I'm merely offering it as a possibility.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote: > On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote: > I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge > for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with > finality. > > > I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs. > > In any case, this might be enough - congratulations (and my bad!) - but I > note that as the actions later in a message are traditionally considered > to occur an instant later, it would be a reasonable principle to say that the > later voting periods also end instants later. Notice the "same time" language in R305. (I dunno if this is an argument for or against, just thought I'd point it out). -Goethe
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on forfeiture
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
("Forfeiture" isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player, retain voting, etc? Just seeking
clarification, no strong arguments either way).
-Goethe.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote: > Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement. > The default assumption is the default because it is > usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in > control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something > which I could verify if necessary but which I thought would be fairly > obvious, you should agree that it is clear (>95% chance, > since we're talking Bayesian) I made a random-ish mental determination of > whether to send the message myself or ask my brother > to do it. Although the chance of each option was probably not exactly 50%, > as it depended on my mental state, the availability > of my brother, etc., and I admit I did not actually flip a coin, still you > should agree that there is a substantial chance of > each option which, based on the information you have, is not more than 10 or > 20 percent away from 50%. Therefore, from a > Bayesian perspective, there is not enough information for you to establish a > reasonably high likelihood of either option. > > From a legal perspective - well, that's different, but although it is within > reason that a court could distort a determination > of the truth (who sent the message) into a hard rule to be applied in lieu of > absolute proof to the contrary, designed to > prioritize having some answer over correctness, I question whether we should > do so (or have done so) in Agora. I suppose we do > make such assumptions about mail sent from a particular email address, but > that's a much narrower case and involves the > definition of the sender of a message, and hasn't been tested in any case. Email identity is a special case in every email nomic. In order to play, even start the game, a player must assume the independence (as thinking entities) of different email sources (Well, I assume that everyone who registered since 2003 is an avatar of Steve, but that's jus me) . If a question on identify is raised, it necessarily involves examining what is known about the real facts and adjust those assumptions. Basically, since we start out making a strong assumption about each email address, and this assumption is necessary just to play the game, it takes genuine evidence (not just "maybe it was me, maybe not") to shift the assumption. This is actually fully compatible with a Bayesian worldview, at least in the sub discipline of decision theory. At the end of the day it's the preponderance of the evidence, which Is strongly informed by the priors.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a > > flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, > > maybe I was channeling). > > Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've heard, I > wouldn't know. I mean, yeah I did do subjective priors once. But I didn't > inhale. Man, once you get started you just can't stop. Problem is you actually come to decisions one day, the you realize that Uniform just ain't doing it anymore and you need a heavy weighting hit. I could tell you tales about colleagues strung out on gammas, paralyzed with uncertainty, chains never converging, begging for "just one more" parameter...
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
Yes, it had occurred to me that Rule 219 is unclear if the "move" under consideration has to be an actual or at least attempted move, or if a hypothetical move is sufficient. If the latter, well, here it is. If the former, then I needed to get the ball rolling by making a CFJ anyway. (Although I suppose I could have disguised it by making a seemingly-unrelated CFJ first and waiting for an assignment on that.) As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran tradition carries over to Agora XX. Chuck > On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote: > >> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge >> for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with >> finality. > > > I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs. > > In any case, this might be enough - congratulations (and my bad!) - but I > note that as the actions later in a message are traditionally considered > to > occur an instant later, it would be a reasonable principle to say that the > later voting periods also end instants later. >
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote: > I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge > for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with > finality. I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs. In any case, this might be enough - congratulations (and my bad!) - but I note that as the actions later in a message are traditionally considered to occur an instant later, it would be a reasonable principle to say that the later voting periods also end instants later.
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting period most recently ended. Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all adopted and thus became rule changes.] Chuck
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, maybe I was channeling). Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've heard, I wouldn't know. I mean, yeah I did do subjective priors once. But I didn't inhale. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On 26/06/2013 8:20 AM, omd wrote: Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement. The default assumption is the default because it is usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something which I could verify if necessary but which I thought would be fairly obvious, Okay, why was that supposed to be fairly obvious? Apparently there are lots of UNDEAD. See the discussion that followed. There are lots of suspects here. Maybe you could have verified it was you or your brother (without verifying either disjunct), but you didn't. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Fool wrote: > > Goethe's arguments: > >> Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes >> along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a >> mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or >> unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of >> indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish >> where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has >> been "assume each new email address is from a different person". Omd >> questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not >> sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, stick >> with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other >> than omd). >> > > Clearly the presumption is of course that the Undead is not a Voter. > Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement. The default assumption is the default because it is usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something which I could verify if necessary but which I thought would be fairly obvious, you should agree that it is clear (>95% chance, since we're talking Bayesian) I made a random-ish mental determination of whether to send the message myself or ask my brother to do it. Although the chance of each option was probably not exactly 50%, as it depended on my mental state, the availability of my brother, etc., and I admit I did not actually flip a coin, still you should agree that there is a substantial chance of each option which, based on the information you have, is not more than 10 or 20 percent away from 50%. Therefore, from a Bayesian perspective, there is not enough information for you to establish a reasonably high likelihood of either option. >From a legal perspective - well, that's different, but although it is within reason that a court could distort a determination of the truth (who sent the message) into a hard rule to be applied in lieu of absolute proof to the contrary, designed to prioritize having some answer over correctness, I question whether we should do so (or have done so) in Agora. I suppose we do make such assumptions about mail sent from a particular email address, but that's a much narrower case and involves the definition of the sender of a message, and hasn't been tested in any case.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was > supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference to > the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like some sort of > Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on anyway. For this to work > I would have to put 100% credence in omd's statement and then think that there > was nothing to epistemically distinguish the two branches. This is far from > the case. > > --Dan the non-Bayesian Fool. I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, maybe I was channeling).
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
Quite right Dan. While I applaud the spirit of omd's attempt to win by paradox, we are very far from being in a position to say that we cannot determine whether The UNDEAD is player. We haven't even tried to collect any of the possibly relevant evidence yet! On 26 June 2013 11:22, Fool wrote: > On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The >> UNDEAD> >> wrote: >> >>> I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327. >>> >> >> Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't >> want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :) >> >> I invoke judgement on the statement "The legality of The UNDEAD's >> attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality." >> >> I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't >> reveal which one. My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal >> iff I was the one who sent it. >> >> > Maybe you should have delayed about 11 hours. By rule 214, I must assign > myself Judge. By rule 215, I have 24 hours. But I rule now: FALSE. > > Goethe's arguments: > >> Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes >> along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a >> mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or >> unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of >> indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish >> where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has >> been "assume each new email address is from a different person". Omd >> questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not >> sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, stick >> with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other >> than omd). >> > > Clearly the presumption is of course that the Undead is not a Voter. > > Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was > supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference > to the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like some sort of > Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on anyway. For this to > work I would have to put 100% credence in omd's statement and then think > that there was nothing to epistemically distinguish the two branches. This > is far from the case. > > --Dan the non-Bayesian Fool. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ on the UNDEAD
On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD wrote: I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327. Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :) I invoke judgement on the statement "The legality of The UNDEAD's attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality." I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't reveal which one. My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff I was the one who sent it. Maybe you should have delayed about 11 hours. By rule 214, I must assign myself Judge. By rule 215, I have 24 hours. But I rule now: FALSE. Goethe's arguments: Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has been "assume each new email address is from a different person". Omd questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, stick with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other than omd). Clearly the presumption is of course that the Undead is not a Voter. Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference to the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like some sort of Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on anyway. For this to work I would have to put 100% credence in omd's statement and then think that there was nothing to epistemically distinguish the two branches. This is far from the case. --Dan the non-Bayesian Fool.
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ reassigned to Goethe
I raised a CFJ which FSX was to rule on: I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322 contains a conditional: 322 (Walker): - If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to read ... This isn't like "the rule formerly numbered 211" which isn't a condition but a way to refer to a rule. Time ran out about 10 hours ago. By rule 214 and 215, FSX loses 10 points, and I am to randomly re-assign it to a Voter other than FSX. So my virtual 10-sided die comes up ... Goethe. You have 24 hours. As a further note, it turns out 106 was not mutable at the time 322 would have passed (and still is immutable). -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ reassigned to Walker
On 23 Jun 2013, at 13:17, Fool wrote: scshunt raised 2 CFJs which I was to rule on. I ruled on one with my 6th report, and procrastinated on this one: > I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself > without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes > must be voted on and cannot occur automatically. The court must consider whether R106 or R108 exclude the possibility of rule changes that have not been voted on. One interpretation is that they simply refer to one method of changing the rules without preventing others. Of particular concern is what 'they' in R106 refers to: all rule changes, or just rule changes which have been 'proposed'? R108 offers some guidance here as its first sentence clearly refers to all rule changes. In fact, I think it is clear even from reading R106 in isolation that it is talking about all rule changes. The initial set simply does not consider the possibility of rule changes which are not voted on. So all rule changes are adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and all rule changes are subject to R108's time restriction. Neither of these restrictions, however, prevent a rule repealing itself if the rule's text makes a statement to that effect, the rule change received the required number of votes and the rule change occurs on or after the completion of the relevant vote. The presumption behind this case seems to be that the rule change in question was not voted on. This court rules that it was. The wool has not been pulled over the voters' eyes here: they voted on a rule which stated that it would repeal itself. Then it repealed itself. It must be pointed out that this ruling is limited to allowing specific rule changes which are clearly going to happen as a result of a proposal at the time that the proposal is being voted on. These are the only rule changes which have been voted on. So, for example, a rule which makes random rule changes is at present impossible. TRUE. -- Walker
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ reassigned to Walker
scshunt raised 2 CFJs which I was to rule on. I ruled on one with my 6th report, and procrastinated on this one: > I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself > without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes > must be voted on and cannot occur automatically. My time ran out about 12 hours ago. Sorry about that folks. I was penalised 10 points. By rule 214 and 215 I am also to randomly assign it to a Voter other than scshunt. So my virtual 10-sided die comes up .. Walker. You have 24 hours. This CFJ would now also affect Rule 323. -Dan
Re: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
On 22/06/2013 9:09 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote: I invoke Judgement on the following statement: The “proposals” numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the adoption of other currently existing proposals. Reasoning: they propose to amend (currently) immutable rules. This is not one of the types of rule changes listed in rule 105. It is true that there are proposals to transmute those rules which precede the respective amendment of the rule, but at the moment the “proposals” were made the rules they claim to amend were immutable. Chuck By rule 214 I must select myself Judge, and by rule 215 I have 24 hours. -Dan
DIS: Agora XX: CFJ
I invoke Judgement on the following statement: The "proposals" numbered 312, 313, 318, 319, and 320 are not proposed rule changes, and will have no effect if adopted, regardless of the adoption of other currently existing proposals. Reasoning: they propose to amend (currently) immutable rules. This is not one of the types of rule changes listed in rule 105. It is true that there are proposals to transmute those rules which precede the respective amendment of the rule, but at the moment the "proposals" were made the rules they claim to amend were immutable. Chuck
