Re: DIS: Re: (@Promotor) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8805-8810, 8812-8814
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:58 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:48 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > It really just depends on how you define "different". If they are the
> same,
> > they could have just both been denied when I denied the first one. You
> > don't have to exist to be preemptively denied. You could also interpret
> > this as being when the second CoE was issued, it inherited the denial
> from
> > the first one, since they are the same. A weirder issue, though, is if
> they
> > are the same CoE, that CoE may not exist, since a CoE is a doubt, and
> when
> > you deny a doubt, it ceases to be a doubt... so you may not be able to
> > issue it again, since it's no longer a doubt.
>
> They aren't the same CoE (despite having the same content), and I'm
> surprised that there can be any controversy about that.
>
I was surprised too when it happened to the identical proposals I tried to
make. It was mostly just a joke about how I don't understand your logic for
the previous judgement, since this seems very similar, but then you
responded so I tried to actually reason about how they could be "the same
doubt", which makes natural language sense, since it's the same issue you
take with the report. You used shorthand like I did, since "CoE:" basically
expands to "i issue a claim of error with the following explanation". So
this is sort of different, sort of the same. I really don't know anymore, I
just wanted to submit multiple proposals in an obvious way and somehow it's
being interpreted the ridiculous way instead.
I'm not sure what everyone means by "different", "identical", or "the same"
because it doesn't match my perception and doesn't seem to be consistent
across what different people are saying. "Identical entities" and "the same
entity" can sometimes be the same thing, it really just depends on context.
You can reasonably say two separate coins are "the same entity", and that
wouldn't make there only be one coins. It would just be two coins that are
the same. And then there's "instances" which are more specific. "Two
instances of the same entity." I feel like this phrase could apply to the
CoEs you made, and to the proposals I made. Entities that are the same, but
different instances. Instance 1 was created when you made the first CoE,
and instance 2 when you made the second. You created the same thing twice,
but they are separate instances, and thus can be dealt with and owned
separately, like coins. I just created the same thing 81 times.
But these are all just my assumptions of how these words work, and you have
your own. I'm just confused as to how we're to judge anything when these
differences in meaning arise. You assign a random judge to a question like
this and there's a chance they have a completely different interpretation
of these concepts from most players. We're going to disagree, but allowing
that disagreement to interfere with playing the game properly is something
I want to avoid, and it seems like my interpretation has just been denied
even though for a good while there was barely any question about if the
proposals had been created, and there's instances of things that had been
created in that way before, giving a basis for my actions to be interpreted
as "specifying the action and setting forth intent to perform that action,
doing both clearly and unambiguously", as necessary for by announcement
actions. It's hopefully obvious my intent was not to do something
impossible, but the specification can certainly be questioned, except that
the action I took was one taken so many times as proposals have been
created over the course of Agora the exact same way.
"I submit the following proposal: {attributes of proposal}" has been used
over and over again to create proposals with specified attributes in Agora.
I just wanted to take that classic action 81 times, so I added "81 times,"
in front of it. Must I be punished for using the phrasing of so many before
me with such a simple addition?
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Promotor) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8805-8810, 8812-8814
On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:48 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > It really just depends on how you define "different". If they are the same, > they could have just both been denied when I denied the first one. You > don't have to exist to be preemptively denied. You could also interpret > this as being when the second CoE was issued, it inherited the denial from > the first one, since they are the same. A weirder issue, though, is if they > are the same CoE, that CoE may not exist, since a CoE is a doubt, and when > you deny a doubt, it ceases to be a doubt... so you may not be able to > issue it again, since it's no longer a doubt. They aren't the same CoE (despite having the same content), and I'm surprised that there can be any controversy about that. (It's also impossible to pre-emptively deny a CoE, as you can't deny it *before* it exists; the action of denying a CoE requires an actual CoE as its referent. If it were possible, that would allow for a trivial scam.) Your reasoning here is pretty much following the same logic as "all coins with the same owner are identical, thus each player only actually has one coin", which would also be invalid reasoning. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: (@Promotor) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8805-8810, 8812-8814
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:39 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:30 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:17 PM ais523 via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > CoE: the proposal referred to as "8817" above doesn't exist. Adding > > > a proposal that's already in the proposal pool to the proposal pool > > > has no effect, it doesn't just duplicate the proposal. > > > > > > In order to prevent an infinite loop of CoEs and denials (required from > > > my side to prevent self-ratification of a false statement, and from > > > your side by the requirement to respond to a CoE), I suggest you > > > initiate or cite a CFJ (3978 could be a good option). > > If I cite a cfj then it will forever be doubted, though... > > > > Oh well, I cite CFJ 3978 in response to the quoted CoE. (But I do deny > this > > claim in my head.) > > > > (Insert joke about you creating the same CoE twice) > > They necessarily have to be two different CoEs, despite having the same > wording, because there was a point in time at which the first one was > denied but the second one wasn't. > It really just depends on how you define "different". If they are the same, they could have just both been denied when I denied the first one. You don't have to exist to be preemptively denied. You could also interpret this as being when the second CoE was issued, it inherited the denial from the first one, since they are the same. A weirder issue, though, is if they are the same CoE, that CoE may not exist, since a CoE is a doubt, and when you deny a doubt, it ceases to be a doubt... so you may not be able to issue it again, since it's no longer a doubt. -- secretsnail
DIS: Re: (@Promotor) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8805-8810, 8812-8814
On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:30 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:17 PM ais523 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > CoE: the proposal referred to as "8817" above doesn't exist. Adding > > a proposal that's already in the proposal pool to the proposal pool > > has no effect, it doesn't just duplicate the proposal. > > > > In order to prevent an infinite loop of CoEs and denials (required from > > my side to prevent self-ratification of a false statement, and from > > your side by the requirement to respond to a CoE), I suggest you > > initiate or cite a CFJ (3978 could be a good option). > If I cite a cfj then it will forever be doubted, though... > > Oh well, I cite CFJ 3978 in response to the quoted CoE. (But I do deny this > claim in my head.) > > (Insert joke about you creating the same CoE twice) They necessarily have to be two different CoEs, despite having the same wording, because there was a point in time at which the first one was denied but the second one wasn't. -- ais523
