On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 17:50, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> =================== CFJ 2677 (Interest Index = 2) ==================== >>> >>> The cards named in the above message were destroyed due to >>> C-walker's self-auditing. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> >>> Gratuitous Arguments by c-walker: >>> >>> ["the CFJ" is CFJ 2678] >>> >>> I argue for UNTETERMINED; see arguments accopanying the CFJ in my next >>> message. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> >>> Gratuitous Arguments by Tiger: >>> >>> d...@nomic.net has been used in the past when random results were >>> needed, though before this situation it has always been a recordkeepor >>> with some authority who has said "I destroy these assets, see the dice >>> results for proof that they are randomly chosen". In this situation >>> there is noone to perform the destructions as it happens platonically, >>> so I say that the first message from an accepted source of randomness >>> (here d...@nomic.net) should count as determining what happened. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> >>> Gratuitous Arguments by G.: >>> >>> In legal language (and the current situation) we're talking about >>> making a decision under "uncertainty" in what is. There are a lot of >>> laws dealing with "decisionmaking when the true state of affairs is >>> unknown but statistically measured". I think "randomness" in a legal >>> sense is associated with "arbitrary and capricious" decisions which >>> are in fact bad. For example, imaging a judge saying "both parents >>> had an equally good case for child custody, so I'm flipping a coin." >>> Though I suppose it may have come up if a judge were working with a >>> contract that involved gambling or something. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> >> It appears that there are two possible meanings for "random", granted >> equal weight under Rule 754(3): the mathematical and the legal. >> >> The caller argues for the mathematical definition, which would make the >> determination of cards unknowable not just in practice (unreasonable >> effort) but even in principle. This is obviously undesirable. >> >> In legal contexts, "random" apparently (see quoted arguments from G. in >> a-d) has a meaning closer to "arbitrary". Under this interpretation of >> the rule, any means whatsoever of selecting the cards fulfills the >> requirements of the Rule. This is also somewhat undesirable, as it >> grants rather more power to whoever performs an Audit than was probably >> intended, but I believe that it is preferable to the alternative. >> >> Therefore, I judge that, for the best interests of the game, the legal >> meaning of "random" trumps its mathematical meaning, and the first >> message to purport a specific possible outcome for a given random event >> is automatically, retroactively correct, regardless of how the outcome >> was selected. >> >> TRUE. >> >> > Based on this judgment I deny all CoEs against the most recently > published Insulator's Justice report and Anarchist's Change report. > Both reports were completely accurate. Furthermore I argue for NOT > GUILTY in related criminal CFJs brought against me. > > BobTHJ >
CoE: Both the Insulator and Anarchist reports mentioned are incorrect as c-walker possesses some cards from at least one of those decks (I have verified from Tiger's report of which cards were destroyed that at least one of eir Change or Justice cards was not destroyed. It's not my duty to figure out which. Your argument for NOT GUILTY is invalid due to this point. -coppro
