Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
Goethe wrote: > Yah, that would be fine for the same practical effect, although it couldn't > wholly undo things - if the previous one changed a rule and then a later > one put it back, at the very least an amendment number would change. It > would be possible to go further and retroactively reset amendment numbers > etc., but that becomes so radical for no purpose it would track a lot of > against votes, I think. Proposal Y saying "set the gamestate to what it would be if Proposal X had not taken effect" ought to work, assuming that they're in the same batch, Y has Power >= 3 (the usual standard for hand-wave-y "set the gamestate to what it would be" proposals), and X does not block Y.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
2009/3/14 Kerim Aydin : > Perhaps a typical example of the fallacy of "I Think It Is, Therefore It > Has Become So"? That has plagued Agora for a long time?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, comex wrote: > But I believe this is incorrect, because this is not a pragmatic > nomic: it's a platonic nomic with some explicit elements of > pragmatism. Perhaps a typical example of the fallacy of "I Think It Is, Therefore It Has Become So"?
DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so, > including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it > reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for > the duration of this message I will fail to interpret the first > paragraph of rule 2110 as recommended by section (2) of rule 754. Okay. > I subsequently interpret... > Furthermore... No problem, you're free to interpret the Rules as you wish. > This is a win announcement But I believe this is incorrect, because this is not a pragmatic nomic: it's a platonic nomic with some explicit elements of pragmatism. In theory, there is one correct gamestate and one correct interpretation of the rules, which has been true all along and has nothing to do with whatever a judge or anyone else thinks about the matter. While this may be a gigantic headfake, the fact remains that we are playing the game as if we find, not create, the correct interpretation of the Rules. What is this interpretation? The one that the standard Agoran reads in the rules; and unless everyone agrees with coppro's decision to interpret Rule 2110 differently, the standard Agoran would follow the SHOULD. Thus, as long as the consensus is to follow the SHOULD, it guides the correct interpretation whether or not coppro chooses to violate it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> >>> If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same >>> time as this proposal, it is of no effect. >> >> This is an interesting, orthogonal note. Assuming the referent of "it" >> is the "Fix recursive SHOULD" proposal, is it possible for a proposal >> to so inhibit another (both of the same power)? >> >> That last paragraph of R106 would seem to allow one adopted power-3 >> proposal to prevent another from taking effect, but does the timing >> work out? (E.g. this one takes effect either before or after the other, >> so it's either too late or too early). > > Certainly, causing one proposal to /undo/ another works, if they're of > the same power, assuming that power situation is symmetrical at the > time. That would probably be a better way to specify it in this case. Yah, that would be fine for the same practical effect, although it couldn't wholly undo things - if the previous one changed a rule and then a later one put it back, at the very least an amendment number would change. It would be possible to go further and retroactively reset amendment numbers etc., but that becomes so radical for no purpose it would track a lot of against votes, I think. It was more my curiosity in the theoretical/Platonic sense: I don't think it's possible for one proposal to truly block another from taking effect, as they are both powered instruments at specific (different) instants of in time, but not simultaneously. So I don't think the specification that e used would work. But I was curious if someone else had other interpretations (and if it were possible, it might uncover a bug not a feature). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 00:53 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> the duration of this message I will fail to interpret the first
> paragraph of rule 2110 as recommended by section (2) of rule 754.
Well, that has you legally covered for breaking a SHOULD, I think.
> I subsequently interpret that same paragraph as in the English language,
> which is that rule 2110 defines a tortoise as a subset of inquiry cases
> on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action for which the
> question of veracity is UNDECIDEABLE. I then notice that, given this
> interpretation, the word initatiator has no defined meaning in the
> context. Based on the common use of initiator within the rules, I
> interpret it as the initator of the action, which in this case can refer
> only to the win announcement, as it is the only action mentioned.
I don't believe that this interpretation is possible. The only word
whose definition is under dispute here is "is", as to whether it means
the Agoran "is defined as" in this case, or "is the same as" (the
definition you're using here). Your definition would imply that a
real-life tortoise was a sort of inquiry CfJ; and it therefore violates
rule 991 because a real-life tortoise is not a procedure to settle a
matter of controversy. (Using the same argument twice, and interpreting
rule 991 so that a CfJ describes a real-life judicial case, fails
because real-life judicial cases are unfortunately not a sort of
reptile.) Just because you're complying with rule 754 doesn't
automatically make the definition comply with all the other rules...
> Furthermore, supported by evidence from multiple sources, I note that
> the eggs of Galápagos tortoises hatch between December and March. Since
> the latter weeks of February fall within this range, I claim that, on
> the balance of probabilities, it is, for all intents and purposes,
> certain that a tortoise was born between February 15th and February
> 28th, 2009.
I actually spent about 10 minutes looking up population estimates of
tortoises (what's the chance that none of them laid eggs), but it seems
likely that there is in fact a tortoise between two and four weeks old.
However, unfortunately none of them are intended to resolve Agoran
controversies...
> This is a win announcement, announcing that, for reasons specified
> above, there exists a tortoise that has continuously been a tortoise,
> for a period no greater than four and no less than four weeks, and as a
> result I satisfy the Winning Condition of Paradox.
Fails, you typoed "two" as "four". I believe it would have failed
anyway, though.
> To meet my obligations to the cleanup procedure for the Winning
> Condition of Paradox, I submit the following proposal named {Fix 754},
> Adoption Index 3:
>
>
> Amend rule 754 by replacing the first instance of {SHOULD} with {SHALL}.
>
Oh no, this really doesn't fix the situation. Don't obligate people to
interpret a rule a certain way; instead, make it so that that
interpretation is true. (Incidentally, I've been warning of the dangers
of applying SHOULD to inanimate objects, interpretations, or pretty much
anything but actions, for quite a while now, at least on IRC.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > > If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same > > time as this proposal, it is of no effect. > > This is an interesting, orthogonal note. Assuming the referent of "it" > is the "Fix recursive SHOULD" proposal, is it possible for a proposal > to so inhibit another (both of the same power)? > > That last paragraph of R106 would seem to allow one adopted power-3 > proposal to prevent another from taking effect, but does the timing > work out? (E.g. this one takes effect either before or after the other, > so it's either too late or too early). Certainly, causing one proposal to /undo/ another works, if they're of the same power, assuming that power situation is symmetrical at the time. That would probably be a better way to specify it in this case. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same > time as this proposal, it is of no effect. This is an interesting, orthogonal note. Assuming the referent of "it" is the "Fix recursive SHOULD" proposal, is it possible for a proposal to so inhibit another (both of the same power)? That last paragraph of R106 would seem to allow one adopted power-3 proposal to prevent another from taking effect, but does the timing work out? (E.g. this one takes effect either before or after the other, so it's either too late or too early). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so, > including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it > reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for > the duration of this message I will fail to interpret the first > paragraph of rule 2110 as recommended by section (2) of rule 754. > > I subsequently interpret that same paragraph as in the English language... Hee hee hee. Wonderful. The only issue here is that not only do you have to interpret thus, but (if challenged) a judge has to interpret thus, and (if necessary) the appeals courts have to interpret thus, and (to ensure most Agorans are generally satisfied and don't keep calling CFJs on the matter) they have to do so in a way that might at least placate the archetypical reasonable Agoran (for are we all, *all*, reasonable Agorans). But if aforementioned judge, reasonable Agorans et al. also consider the consequences carefully and come to the same failure to interpret &tc, congratulations! -G.
