On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > 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.
Yeah, it wouldn't really be a reason to moot. However if the judge is getting paid for it, it would be nice if they would think about it., and come to a conclusion about the subject, even if it isn't one I agree with. >> 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 > None of those appear to consider an explicit disagreement between the game and reality. They primarily deal with what happens when the game doesn't specify something (reality takes over), and don't resolve this issue. >> 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. As I understand, that was a reenactment of previous text to allow for more specificity in judgments. I wouldn't really object if someone judged it IRRELEVANT per se, but I think it deserves an answer in addition to the judgement. -Aris
