On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote: > CFJs aren't really that powerful. They're guidelines, not legally binding. If > the guideline > is absurd everyone ignores it. > > On Jul 8, 2017 06:25, "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.)
A weak-CFJ system only works if there's a deeper meta-agreement to accept judgements you don't wholly agree with and get on with the game. The meta-agreement is referred to in R217's "past judgements" bit. You don't have to accept truly unreasonable judgements (hence Moots, Reconsideration), but you should accept judgements where you say "I would have made the other decision if I'd been the judge, but it wasn't my turn to judge, and it's a case where reasonable people may differ." If a judgement that you find unreasonable survives moots, and reconsiderations, and ultimately proposals (because you can always resort to a proposal to fix things, including retroactive fixes), that means the consensus of other players is against you. If you ultimately can't abide by that (and you think all other players are cheating or being hypocrites by abiding by an unreasonable judgement), quitting the game is the only final remedy! (proof that we acknowledge and respect that final choice is the Cantus Cygneus). An example of a set of judgements that split the game (after dueling CFJs judged by the two different camps) were the ones that found that Partnerships were Persons. It was a choice between two strongly-conflicting belief sets with similar numbers of proponents, and the CFJ system is (sort of on-purpose) designed to fail so that no one side could impose their choice by fiat - instead it was ultimately settled via a closely-voted rule change. I can't remember if anyone *did* quit as a result, but I there were threats, and the proposal was the only fair way to settle it. -G.
