2009/9/17 Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com>: > 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 > Erm, my report doesn't say anything about that directly, it only says which government cards were destroyed. However, I thought I was clear enough in my response to the d...@nomic roll. Here it is again:
Committee, 3 Roll Call, 2 Distrib-u-Matic, Debate-o-matic, Kill bill, Arm-Twist, Local Election, Your Turn, On the Nod were destroyed. This left em with 3 Roll Call, Your Turn and Drop Your Weapon. E played both Your Turn and Drop Your Weapon in the same message, so BobTHJ's reports were technically correct in that e didn't have any Change or Justice cards. Please include this as gratuitous or evidence in any relevant criminal case. -- -Tiger
