On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Three reasons that would be a bad judgment, which I would likely moot:
>
> 1. I'm paying for the CFJ, which means the judge will get paid for it.
> It wouldn't be very nice to take money and then assign an effectively
> null judgment.
This is an inappropriate line of thinking, regardless of your other
arguments. A CFJ's truth shouldn't be dependent whatsoever on how it
was paid for.
> 2. The CFJ concerns a subject of deep game significance. If the rules
> directly disagree with reality, which one wins? I
> We've been assuming that the rules do, but I haven't seen a ruling on
> it. This is probably one of the most important philosophical questions
> in the history of the game, with many implications for how we play,
> and it shouldn't just be tossed out unconsidered.
I agree that it's an interesting philosophical point, but there are a few
rulings on the subject, mainly that "reality wins" in general:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1613
> 3. We have something of a tradition of dealing with hypothetical
> situations even when they're unlikely to occur, particularly when they
> clarify the application of existing rules.
While we have "something of a tradition", we only recently voted in this
language (in June):
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions
The fact that we explicitly added it to the Rules means we should re-
interpret this standard in light of recent legislative action, and (IMO)
be more ready to call hypothetical situations IRRELEVANT.
> See, for instance, CFJs
> 1147 (really strong precedent), 1887, etc. Admittedly we sometimes do
> the opposite, but it does support the other two.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Oct 20, 2017 7:00 PM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would judge IRRELEVANT: situation appears to be too hypothetical
> > and attenuated to be a useful clarification of the game state.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant
> > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
> > >> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If
> > >> there
> > >> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy
> > >> the
> > >> universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action,
> > >> and I
> > >> announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of
> > >> the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as far as
> > >> the
> > >> game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I request that
> > >> the
> > >> judge consider the situation both with and without existing power 4 rules
> > >> (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the destruction of the universe in
> > >> this way would have practical effect upon the game. I also request that
> > >> the
> > >> H. Arbitor link the cases and that they have a combined caselog. I'll
> > >> probably have more arguments later, and invite the arguments of others.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >
> > >
> > > Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
