Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM, ais523 wrote: > There used to be a rule limiting it to five > per player per week, but the limit isn't really needed in practice. Two > or three is perfectly fine, though. Actually, that limit still exists: An excess case is a new case whose initiator previously initiated five or more cases during the same week as that case. A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case. The Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse an excess case by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case. When e does so, e fulfills any obligations with regards to that case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 09:52 -0700, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > I have another idea for a win by paradox which circumvents the > restrictions on self-reference. As I am ignorant of Agoran custom, I > thought I would ask first: would it be poor form of me to submit a new > CFJ before the first one has worked its way through the system? Sending through more than about five at once is considered poor form (unless it's as part of some sort of scam, in which case it's poor form to give the CFJs anything other than trivial statements like "this is a CFJ" in order to clarify that there isn't actually a bunch of separate questions to be resolved). There used to be a rule limiting it to five per player per week, but the limit isn't really needed in practice. Two or three is perfectly fine, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
Only Victory Announcements. Calling CFJs prevents self-ratification, but judging them doesn't restart it. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, com...@gmail.com wrote: >> If a judgement is incorrect, it's just incorrect: there's no reason why a >> case should end up with an inappropriate judgement, unless a judicial panel >> is too hasty with AFFIRM/OVERRULE, but if it does, and it's widely accepted >> the judgement was incorrect, it's not the end of the world (the judgement >> has no force). > > Oh, addendum: there is a place where a judgement can sneak in and have > force. If it is related to self-ratification, then an incorrect judgement > can stand and the document can ratify. This is in fact relevant for > Victory conditions (winning the game)... > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, com...@gmail.com wrote: > If a judgement is incorrect, it's just incorrect: there's no reason why a > case should end up with an inappropriate judgement, unless a judicial panel > is too hasty with AFFIRM/OVERRULE, but if it does, and it's widely accepted > the judgement was incorrect, it's not the end of the world (the judgement has > no force). Oh, addendum: there is a place where a judgement can sneak in and have force. If it is related to self-ratification, then an incorrect judgement can stand and the document can ratify. This is in fact relevant for Victory conditions (winning the game)...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
See also CFJ 1346, although that case didn't preclude the possibility of incorrect judgements affecting things, as game custom has since. Or Lindrum World. Rule 217 actually does give force to "past judgements", but only as one factor in cases of inclarity. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:40 AM, com...@gmail.com wrote: > If a judgement is incorrect, it's just incorrect: there's no reason why a > case should end up with an inappropriate judgement, unless a judicial panel > is too hasty with AFFIRM/OVERRULE, but if it does, and it's widely accepted > the judgement was incorrect, it's not the end of the world (the judgement has > no force). > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Ozymandias Haynes > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Elliott Hird >> wrote: >>> On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes >>> wrote: I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No? >>> >>> It is easy to see that this would not work by removing the >>> (inconsequential) self-reference from the picture: CFJ on "I have >>> won.", get it judged TRUE, and claim victory based on that CFJ. That >>> wouldn't make the judgement correct -- there is no rules or >>> custom-based argument for you having won. So the judgement would be >>> appealed. >>> >>> And by the way, welcome to Agora! >> >> Well, the difference between my submitted CFJ and your case of CFJ: "I >> have won." is that in the latter case I would expect a judge to rule >> FALSE and that be the end of it. For either a ruling of TRUE or FALSE >> of my CFJ, the judgment would logically imply that I have won, and >> this would have the authority of a judicial ruling in some sense. >> It's a way of forcing a Judge to assert something they would normally >> not assert. >> >> But in any case, you could always say that a certain controversial >> judgment is wrong. Indeed, I would expect players with strong views >> contrary to any official judgment to have this belief, and divided >> belief on some point is the reason for the CFJ in the first place. >> Isn't judgment supposed to be the legitimizing mechanism by which the >> game settles a controversial matter and moves forward? Or is it your >> view that some judicial decisions are "incorrect" and, if the Agoran >> community lets this "incorrect" ruling stand, then the game bifurcates >> in an illegitimate way? Or have I misconstrued you entirely? >> >> Thanks for the welcome. :D >> >> -Ozymandias
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > But in any case, you could always say that a certain controversial > judgment is wrong. Indeed, I would expect players with strong views > contrary to any official judgment to have this belief, and divided > belief on some point is the reason for the CFJ in the first place. > Isn't judgment supposed to be the legitimizing mechanism by which the > game settles a controversial matter and moves forward? Or is it your > view that some judicial decisions are "incorrect" and, if the Agoran > community lets this "incorrect" ruling stand, then the game bifurcates > in an illegitimate way? Or have I misconstrued you entirely? The judgement "settles" a question, but doesn't officially change the truth. But there's nothing in the rules that stops someone from raising the exact same question, over and over again. If we were really angry at each other, we could paralyze the game that way. If two camps were arguing about whether you won, each camp could call a CFJ (hoping it got assigned to someone on their side) and it could ping-pong back and forth forever. This would be equivalent to someone at a boardgame table just saying "I don't care if everyone else says I can't do that! I say I can!" and generally having a fit. The whole reason it works is that we generally have a meta-agreement that we're playing a game, and one of the rules is that the first judge has precedence on the matter (and if the first judge is really wrong, the appeals judges do). But really, if that broke down, it would just be an unplayable game (not oscillating "truth" or bifurcation). I've sometimes kinda wondered what would happen if there was such a bifurcation that two camps each claimed their side was the "real" Agora, each publishing different sets of reports, etc. There'd be no in-game (e.g. logical) way of deciding, it wouldn't be a logical bifurcation, just two competing interpretations. Oh, hmm, that is what happened in Lindrum World... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
If a judgement is incorrect, it's just incorrect: there's no reason why a case should end up with an inappropriate judgement, unless a judicial panel is too hasty with AFFIRM/OVERRULE, but if it does, and it's widely accepted the judgement was incorrect, it's not the end of the world (the judgement has no force). Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Elliott Hird > wrote: >> On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: >>> I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could >>> submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE >>> judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No? >> >> It is easy to see that this would not work by removing the >> (inconsequential) self-reference from the picture: CFJ on "I have >> won.", get it judged TRUE, and claim victory based on that CFJ. That >> wouldn't make the judgement correct -- there is no rules or >> custom-based argument for you having won. So the judgement would be >> appealed. >> >> And by the way, welcome to Agora! > > Well, the difference between my submitted CFJ and your case of CFJ: "I > have won." is that in the latter case I would expect a judge to rule > FALSE and that be the end of it. For either a ruling of TRUE or FALSE > of my CFJ, the judgment would logically imply that I have won, and > this would have the authority of a judicial ruling in some sense. > It's a way of forcing a Judge to assert something they would normally > not assert. > > But in any case, you could always say that a certain controversial > judgment is wrong. Indeed, I would expect players with strong views > contrary to any official judgment to have this belief, and divided > belief on some point is the reason for the CFJ in the first place. > Isn't judgment supposed to be the legitimizing mechanism by which the > game settles a controversial matter and moves forward? Or is it your > view that some judicial decisions are "incorrect" and, if the Agoran > community lets this "incorrect" ruling stand, then the game bifurcates > in an illegitimate way? Or have I misconstrued you entirely? > > Thanks for the welcome. :D > > -Ozymandias
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: >> I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could >> submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE >> judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No? > > It is easy to see that this would not work by removing the > (inconsequential) self-reference from the picture: CFJ on "I have > won.", get it judged TRUE, and claim victory based on that CFJ. That > wouldn't make the judgement correct -- there is no rules or > custom-based argument for you having won. So the judgement would be > appealed. > > And by the way, welcome to Agora! Well, the difference between my submitted CFJ and your case of CFJ: "I have won." is that in the latter case I would expect a judge to rule FALSE and that be the end of it. For either a ruling of TRUE or FALSE of my CFJ, the judgment would logically imply that I have won, and this would have the authority of a judicial ruling in some sense. It's a way of forcing a Judge to assert something they would normally not assert. But in any case, you could always say that a certain controversial judgment is wrong. Indeed, I would expect players with strong views contrary to any official judgment to have this belief, and divided belief on some point is the reason for the CFJ in the first place. Isn't judgment supposed to be the legitimizing mechanism by which the game settles a controversial matter and moves forward? Or is it your view that some judicial decisions are "incorrect" and, if the Agoran community lets this "incorrect" ruling stand, then the game bifurcates in an illegitimate way? Or have I misconstrued you entirely? Thanks for the welcome. :D -Ozymandias
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On 28 June 2012 17:07, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could > submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE > judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No? It is easy to see that this would not work by removing the (inconsequential) self-reference from the picture: CFJ on "I have won.", get it judged TRUE, and claim victory based on that CFJ. That wouldn't make the judgement correct -- there is no rules or custom-based argument for you having won. So the judgement would be appealed. And by the way, welcome to Agora!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > I have another idea for a win by paradox which circumvents the > restrictions on self-reference. As I am ignorant of Agoran custom, I > thought I would ask first: would it be poor form of me to submit a new > CFJ before the first one has worked its way through the system? Not really. Two CFJs is not a big imposition. Several CFJs might be (if you find yourself considering several, it might be worth running it by someone else first, either publicly or privately). If you're worried, and if we've absolutely convinced you that the first one doesn't work, then you can retract it by announcement, up until the time it's assigned a judge (Rule 2175). But don't feel obliged! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Elliott Hird >> wrote: >> > Note that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE will not allow you to win by >> > paradox, as a turtle's paradox cannot arise from the case itself, per >> > rule 2358. >> >> Oh, you're right. I guess I should have spent more time reading the >> rules before posting! That clause is a really elegant way to put a >> stop to these kinds of shenanigans. > > Yep! The modern version of the win by paradox rule came into being > after a "true" paradox was created via retroactive action (i.e. a > time travel paradox) so we said, "neat, anyone who does that should > win!" But the first version of the rule didn't have that protection, > which led to a rash of "those kind of shenanigans" in CFJs. > > -G. > > > I have another idea for a win by paradox which circumvents the restrictions on self-reference. As I am ignorant of Agoran custom, I thought I would ask first: would it be poor form of me to submit a new CFJ before the first one has worked its way through the system? -Ozymandias
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Elliott Hird > wrote: > > Note that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE will not allow you to win by > > paradox, as a turtle's paradox cannot arise from the case itself, per > > rule 2358. > > Oh, you're right. I guess I should have spent more time reading the > rules before posting! That clause is a really elegant way to put a > stop to these kinds of shenanigans. Yep! The modern version of the win by paradox rule came into being after a "true" paradox was created via retroactive action (i.e. a time travel paradox) so we said, "neat, anyone who does that should win!" But the first version of the rule didn't have that protection, which led to a rash of "those kind of shenanigans" in CFJs. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > Also, hello Agora! I really like the game you have going here. The > FLR is a beautiful work with many elegant solutions to difficult > philosophical and logical problems. And also, welcome - nice introductory move! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > Also, hello Agora! I really like the game you have going here. The > FLR is a beautiful work with many elegant solutions to difficult > philosophical and logical problems. > Hullo to you, and welcome. Agora really is a wonderful game of Nomic, which is why I'm still subscribed to the mailing list even though I haven't been an active player for quite a while now. =P ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
Also, hello Agora! I really like the game you have going here. The FLR is a beautiful work with many elegant solutions to difficult philosophical and logical problems. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Elliott Hird > wrote: >> Also, TRUE is an incorrect judgement, because you have not won the >> game, regardless of what the judgement says. If I CFJ'd "I have won >> the game in 2012." and it was judged TRUE, that would be an incorrect >> judgement; judgements can interpret the rules, but not override them. > > I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could > submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE > judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Ozymandias Haynes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Elliott Hird > wrote: >> Also, TRUE is an incorrect judgement, because you have not won the >> game, regardless of what the judgement says. If I CFJ'd "I have won >> the game in 2012." and it was judged TRUE, that would be an incorrect >> judgement; judgements can interpret the rules, but not override them. > > I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could > submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE > judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No? Probably not. You'd have to cause a paradox, and *only then* call a CFJ on that paradox. The CFJ can't be involved in the paradox, it only serves to confirm that the paradox exists. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > Also, TRUE is an incorrect judgement, because you have not won the > game, regardless of what the judgement says. If I CFJ'd "I have won > the game in 2012." and it was judged TRUE, that would be an incorrect > judgement; judgements can interpret the rules, but not override them. I don't think this CFJ alone would constitute a win, but I could submit a distinct claim of victory and in the case of a TRUE or FALSE judgment here, cite the CFJ as evidence. No?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > Note that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE will not allow you to win by > paradox, as a turtle's paradox cannot arise from the case itself, per > rule 2358. Oh, you're right. I guess I should have spent more time reading the rules before posting! That clause is a really elegant way to put a stop to these kinds of shenanigans. -Ozymandias
DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
Also, TRUE is an incorrect judgement, because you have not won the game, regardless of what the judgement says. If I CFJ'd "I have won the game in 2012." and it was judged TRUE, that would be an incorrect judgement; judgements can interpret the rules, but not override them.
DIS: Re: BUS: new player registration and a cfj
Note that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE will not allow you to win by paradox, as a turtle's paradox cannot arise from the case itself, per rule 2358.
