DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Edward Murphy]

Gaelan Steele wrote:


I judge this as FALSE.

Rule 1698/4:
  Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
  combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
  changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
  within a four-week period.

  If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
  Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
  exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
  would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
  cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
  contrary notwithstanding.

Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are
created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore,
it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.


More precisely, judging this as TRUE would imply that Agora is already
ossified, which R1698 ought to have prevented.

(Been catching up on e-mail backlog again, will probably finish tonight)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Quazie]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's
> needed to find the CFJ false.
> > I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your
> point that that additional
> > argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it
> serves Agora better Good to
> > not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear
> > opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> Oh, yes... I should have added that I generally agree with your problems
> with using R1698 as a
> primary reason.
>
> Especially as CFJs don't generally change the gamestate, they just tell us
> what the gamestate
> actually is.  So if we used R1698 as a basis (saying "yes, everything's
> ambiguous, but admitting
> that would ossify the game") then what we'd *really* have to conclude is
> "that means the rule
> change, however many years ago, that stated ambiguous actions fail, would
> have ossified the
> game - so that's cancelled and didn't occur."  So we have to go back and
> recalculate everything
> from that point (including re-visiting every single ambiguous action we've
> ever discarded since
> then)!!
>

Note: We should have a regular 'Ratify the world' event to prevent us from
going back too far.

Though i guess if you have to zip back time that far then you get to
pre-ratification, and then you're boned anwyays.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to 
> >find the CFJ false.
> I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point 
> that that additional 
> argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it serves 
> Agora better Good to
> not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear
> opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. 
> 
> 天火狐

Oh, yes... I should have added that I generally agree with your problems with 
using R1698 as a
primary reason.

Especially as CFJs don't generally change the gamestate, they just tell us what 
the gamestate
actually is.  So if we used R1698 as a basis (saying "yes, everything's 
ambiguous, but admitting
that would ossify the game") then what we'd *really* have to conclude is "that 
means the rule
change, however many years ago, that stated ambiguous actions fail, would have 
ossified the
game - so that's cancelled and didn't occur."  So we have to go back and 
recalculate everything
from that point (including re-visiting every single ambiguous action we've ever 
discarded since
then)!!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

I don't quite get the leap of logic to arrive at the sentence. I would like
to enquire CuddleBeam of clarification on what e means by "The ability of
Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch DOES NOT
change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not."

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:54, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> That’s what I thought, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction and I
> don’t understand the third sentence.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> >
> > On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
> ("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > What is this email in reference to?
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I support this.
> > >
> > > I'm also pissed.
> > >
> > > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain
> switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or
> not. It's absurdity.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That’s what I thought, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction and I don’t 
understand the third sentence.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498 ("Every 
> statement is ambiguous") with two support. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> What is this email in reference to?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > I'm also pissed.
> >
> > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch 
> > DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not. It's 
> > absurdity.
> >
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I can understand that.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to 
> > find the CFJ false.
> 
> I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point 
> that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just 
> think that it serves Agora better Good to not codify a potential fallacy and 
> have a clear opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 26 May 2017 at 15:25, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to 
> find the CFJ false.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the official 
> > one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and the main 
> > argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the statement is 
> > TRUE, Agora is
> > ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is 
> > FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me. 
> > (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a 
> > proposal, it and any gamestate
> > changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to gamestate" 
> > clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game to become 
> > ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being found 
> > true.)
> > While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument is 
> > an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it currently 
> > stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ system that 
> > the result of the
> > case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the 
> > conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran 
> > framework for the future. 
> >
> > Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with 
> > the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and 
> > potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not 
> > limited to the
> > aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to ignore 
> > caller's evidence).
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show that 
> > "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and "Any 
> > ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be 
> > unambiguous" together are very
> > bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the 
> > amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ 
> > was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on 
> > the subject of
> > ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole. 
> > On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >   I judge this as FALSE.
> > Rule 1698/4:
> >   Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
> >   combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
> >   changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
> >   within a four-week period.
> >
> >   If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
> >   Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
> >   exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
> >   notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
> >   would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
> >   cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
> >   contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are 
> > created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it 
> > is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> >
> > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from 
> > game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the 
> > players of Agora."
> >   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T  
> > wrote:
> >
> > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: 
> > "Every statement is ambiguous."
> >
> > I present the following argument as caller's evidence:  
> > * Every statement is written in one language. 
> > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. 
> > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language 
> > the statement was not originally written in.  
> > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and 
> > recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
> > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. 
> >
> > 天火狐
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> What is this email in reference to?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > I'm also pissed.
> >
> > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain
> switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or
> not. It's absurdity.
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed
to find the CFJ false.

I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point
that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I
just think that it serves Agora better Good to not codify a potential
fallacy and have a clear opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:25, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to
> find the CFJ false.
>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the
> official one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and
> the main argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the
> statement is TRUE, Agora is
> > ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is
> FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me.
> (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a
> proposal, it and any gamestate
> > changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to
> gamestate" clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game
> to become ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being
> found true.)
> > While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument
> is an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it
> currently stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ
> system that the result of the
> > case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the
> conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran
> framework for the future.
> >
> > Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with
> the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and
> potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not
> limited to the
> > aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to
> ignore caller's evidence).
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show
> that "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and
> "Any ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be
> unambiguous" together are very
> > bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the
> amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ
> was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on
> the subject of
> > ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole.
> > On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >   I judge this as FALSE.
> > Rule 1698/4:
> >   Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
> >   combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
> >   changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
> >   within a four-week period.
> >
> >   If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
> >   Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
> >   exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
> >   notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
> >   would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
> >   cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
> >   contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are
> created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it
> is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> >
> > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from
> game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the
> players of Agora."
> >   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> >
> > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement:
> > "Every statement is ambiguous."
> >
> > I present the following argument as caller's evidence:
> > * Every statement is written in one language.
> > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous.
> > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language
> the statement was not originally written in.
> > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and
> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
> > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What is this email in reference to?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I'm also pissed.
> 
> The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch 
> DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not. It's 
> absurdity.
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Kerim Aydin]

I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to find 
the CFJ false.


On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the official 
> one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and the main 
> argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the statement is 
> TRUE, Agora is
> ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is FALSE", 
> which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me. (I argue 
> that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a proposal, it and 
> any gamestate
> changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to gamestate" 
> clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game to become 
> ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being found true.)
> While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument is 
> an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it currently 
> stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ system that the 
> result of the
> case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the 
> conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran 
> framework for the future. 
> 
> Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with the 
> hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and 
> potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not 
> limited to the
> aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to ignore 
> caller's evidence).
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show that 
> "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and "Any 
> ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be 
> unambiguous" together are very
> bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the 
> amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ 
> was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on the 
> subject of
> ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole. 
> On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>   I judge this as FALSE.
> Rule 1698/4:
>       Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
>       combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
>       changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
>       within a four-week period.
> 
>       If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
>       Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
>       exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
>       notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
>       would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
>       cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
>       contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are 
> created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it is 
> IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> 
> Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from game 
> precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the 
> players of Agora."
>   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: 
> "Every statement is ambiguous."
> 
> I present the following argument as caller's evidence:  
>     * Every statement is written in one language. 
>     * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. 
>     * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language the 
> statement was not originally written in.  
>     * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and 
> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
>     * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. 
> 
> 天火狐

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[CuddleBeam]

I submit the following evidence and recommend AGAINST or DISMISSED:


If "Every statement is ambiguous." is true, then that statement itself
is ambiguous too, and therefore there would be insufficient
information to determine what it is.


So the appropriate judgement would be DISMISSED, even if the statement
were true.


(Ignoring epistemological mojo related to the Ruleset being actually
interpretable in such a case and the nature of this group reverie that
is Agora)

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

Sorry for not specifying in the text itself, but this is relevant to
gameplay because Gaelan (who, I believe is assigned this CFJ, numbered
3498, by ais523 [1]) is trying to question the validity of my amendment to
the charter of 蘭亭社 with "Translation between any two languages is
inherently ambiguous" as a premise.

天火狐

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07938.html

On 21 May 2017 at 10:30, caleb vines  wrote:

>
> On May 21, 2017 9:16 AM, "Nic Evans"  wrote:
>
> I submit the following evidence and recommend AGAINST if DISMISS is not
> accepted:
>
> -"Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous." is an
> untrue statement. There is no such rule in language.-'Ambiguous' in the
> rules refers to player interpretation, not some unknowable objective mark.
> -Because ambiguity is determined case-by-case, it's impossible (and
> fruitless) to make a statement about the ambiguity of every statement.
>
> I submit CFJs 3499 and 3500 as supporting evidence for this gratuitous
> argument.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Gaelan Steele]

Whew. I wasn't excited about that. 

Gaelan 

> On May 19, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I would like to judge this.
> 
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> I explicitly ask to not judge this CFJ
>> 
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:06 Josh T  wrote:
>>> I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: 
>>> 
>>> "Every statement is ambiguous."
>>> 
>>> I present the following argument as caller's evidence:  
>>> * Every statement is written in one language. 
>>> * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. 
>>> * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language 
>>> the statement was not originally written in.  
>>> * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and 
>>> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
>>> * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. 
>>> 
>>> 天火狐
>