Ah, nvm, those are really hard to trollmode. "A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week." and such
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, I see. I guess the issue would then be what has precedence, CFJs or > Ratified things. (And if it Ratified things, couldn't you just trollmode > via those instead?) > > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> No, because someone else would have become the arbiter already OR the >> referee issues their report and it self-ratifies. >> ---- >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and >> judge it as FALSE. >> > >> > What would happen then? >> > >> > (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for >> example, if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me >> another, if a CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would >> need to act with necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it, >> where "behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and >> act from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict, >> due to the perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to >> subject everyone to that hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to >> perspectivism, except nobody is the holder of that perspective. And even >> then, nothing stops people from being dishonest in Judgements anyway, there >> just wouldn't be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll >> case) CFJs. Although, it feels like I shouldn't be able to.) >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot. >> > ---- >> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried >> before?) >> > > >> > > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won >> every ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus >> reasons. >> > > >> > > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ >> "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no >> applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and >> then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE. >> > > >> > > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an >> absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'" >> > > >> > > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and >> Judgements" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because >> PANCAKES. >> > > >> > > "...." >> > > >> > > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-" >> > > >> > > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good >> Forever extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as >> TRUE! because MORE PANCAKES. >> > > >> > > etc etc etc >> > > >> > > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to >> enforce any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it >> away. Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >
