status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4011
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4011 ===============================
There are different types of devices described or defined in R2654
which do not refer to the device switch defined in R2655.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Barred: ais523
Judge: snail
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 15:28:01
Assigned to snail: 21 Feb 2023 01:05:43
Judged TRUE by snail: 01 Mar 2023 05:52:41
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
In CFJ 3941, I judged:
> First, to be clear, The Device switch and The Device rule are not
> "devices" by virtue of their names alone.
In CFJ 4004, Judge ais523 wrote:
> In order to resolve this CFJ, we need to be clear on what a device
> actually is. Rule 2654 has somehow managed to avoid defining it.
> However, rule 2655 does contain a definition: "The device is a
> singleton switch with values off (default) and on."
Neither judgement examined too deeply whether the explicit definition
of the device switch in R2655 contradicts the various properties of
"devices" defined in R2654 (e.g. switches aren't platinum).
To elaborate my CFJ 3941 arguments a bit, I think the various
definitional statements in R2654 describe different types of devices
and therefore define them in a way distinct from the switch. In some
circumstances, definitions can be operational ("a platinum device")
without saying "a device is platinum" directly.
But the main purpose of this cfj is to look at the conflict between
the two judgements, so I'm not arguing too strongly for either side,
mainly trying to resolve the conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge snail's Arguments:
I will first uphold the judgement of CFJ 3941, "the device" is not
necessarily a device. Imagine if there was another switch called "The CFJ",
it wouldn't be a CFJ just because of its name. So the question is, what
about the judgement of CFJ 4004 needs to change? It begins with this
assumption and bases most of its arguments off of it, so practically the
whole judgement needs rethinking, though its conclusion may be the same.
Since "the device" and "a device" are different classes of entities, I find
that enough to simply judge CFJ 4011 TRUE.
Rule 2654 (The Device) describes a few different kinds of devices: Agoran
devices, random devices, welcome devices. I wouldn't go so far to say it
"defines" them, though. It describes the properties of the different kinds
of devices, and also of the device itself, as if they were defined
elsewhere. The device is defined elsewhere, but devices seem to have no
definition, at least while the device is off. There are plenty of
definitions while the device is on, though. This likely functions similarly
to the definition of something such as a stamp being repealed and
reenacted: devices don't exist while they aren't defined, so CFJ 4004's
judgement seems to be correct.
==========================================================================
