On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote: > > > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's > needed to find the CFJ false. > > I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your > point that that additional > > argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it > serves Agora better Good to > > not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear > > opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. > > > > 天火狐 > > Oh, yes... I should have added that I generally agree with your problems > with using R1698 as a > primary reason. > > Especially as CFJs don't generally change the gamestate, they just tell us > what the gamestate > actually is. So if we used R1698 as a basis (saying "yes, everything's > ambiguous, but admitting > that would ossify the game") then what we'd *really* have to conclude is > "that means the rule > change, however many years ago, that stated ambiguous actions fail, would > have ossified the > game - so that's cancelled and didn't occur." So we have to go back and > recalculate everything > from that point (including re-visiting every single ambiguous action we've > ever discarded since > then)!! > Note: We should have a regular 'Ratify the world' event to prevent us from going back too far. Though i guess if you have to zip back time that far then you get to pre-ratification, and then you're boned anwyays.
