I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective. Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as > possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective. > > > > On 2017-10-27 09:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> CFJ 3580 statement: >> >> "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." >> >> >> JUDGEMENT for CFJ 3580: >> >> The Caller’s statement involves a bit of question-begging, but we’ll try >> to get around that. In order to know whether a Rules text does what it >> “purports” to do, we have to first figure out what it is purporting to >> do! There are several possibilities, all of which require a pre- >> supposition of the scope and domain of the Rules. I will try to >> explore the range of possibilities in this judgement, and offer >> potential judgements for each before selecting my final option. For the >> purposes of this judgement, the “Protections” are defined as the power 4 >> rules 101 and 1698. >> >> So, what is a Rule purporting to do if it “succeeds” at “destroying the >> universe”? >> >> The first possibility is that it purports to set the value of an >> undefined and untracked variable, and nothing else. Under this >> supposition, if a “destroy the universe” clause is triggered, then we >> would simply say “there is now an untracked gamestate variable called >> ‘the universe’ and its value is ‘destroyed’. Any CFJ asking whether the >> universe “has been destroyed” will now be true, and any future game >> conditional that says “if the universe has been destroyed, then X” will >> mean X is true. Beyond that, nothing would happen. Under this >> interpretation, this CFJ would be TRUE - we can clearly set such a >> variable without problem. (Since this interpretation doesn’t damage >> anything that the Protections protect against, they aren’t relevant in >> this interpretation). >> >> I reject this possibility because words have meaning. Rule 217 asks us >> to use common definitions for terms that are not rules-defined. If the >> clause featured nonsense words, e.g. “all Slurgs are hereby Poiled”, >> then this would be the correct interpretation, because we would have no >> common sense interpretation other than to say, for CFJ purposes, that >> whenever we encounter Slurgs, they are Poiled Slurgs. But since >> “universe” and “destroyed” both have common definitions, I reject this >> interpretation - setting a useless gamestate variable is not what a >> ‘destroy the universe’ clause is purporting to do (see CFJ 1500 for a >> similar rejection of this interpretation). >> >> The second possibility is that the clause purports that triggering it >> would actually, really, physically destroy the real world universe. >> There is no rules-internal logic that forbid the Rules from taking this >> interpretation. In particular, if the clause were re-written to say >> “when this clause is activated, the actual, real universe is genuinely >> physically destroyed” then this, indeed, would set the rules up for a >> confrontation with reality that the Caller (in eir gratuitous arguments) >> clearly dreads. Again, words have meaning, and words like “actual >> physical real” are hard to get around. >> >> If this were being purported by the clause, the Protections would >> protect us from facing this confrontation with reality. If the universe >> were physically and “really” destroyed, the game would end/cease to >> exist, which would violate R101 and R1698. So we could avoid the >> confrontation with reality and simply say FALSE, this clause would be >> blocked from taking effect by the Protections. >> >> However, without the Protections, the confrontation with reality would >> indeed be forced. To find this CFJ FALSE on such grounds (due to the >> vast range of physical evidence that the rules are incapable of doing >> this) would greatly damage the scope of the rules and our perception of >> the game, as discussed by the Caller. There is a logical out, though: >> if a clause were activated destroying “the actual physical universe” the >> after-the-fact interpretation could be: “hey, the Universe *was* >> actually destroyed, but obviously a new universe was created with all >> our memories intact.” This would allow us to keep faith with both the >> rules and reality, though at the price of accepting a scary degree of >> solipsism (and accepting that Agora is, in fact, Galactus) . Since we >> couldn’t prove otherwise, we might accept some type of judgement like >> IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, as ideas like “maybe we were just >> created 1 minute ago with our memories intact” are unprovable and/or >> irrelevant to our ongoing conduct of the game. If we judged the clause >> before activation, I would pick IRRELEVANT, because if failed, we’d pick >> that kind of interpretation, and if it succeed, we wouldn’t be around to >> care. >> >> However, I reject this interpretation of what is being purported, for >> the less-specific “destroy the universe” phrase in question. We have, >> in fact, through ratification, rejected the real world many times >> without worrying about such confrontations, and while I’m willing to >> make some philosophical decisions for the sake of practicality, taking >> that kind of solipsistic approach draws into question our legal approach >> to important standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt” (if we can >> assume the universe was destroyed and re-created just for us, then no >> doubt or line of argument is unreasonable by comparison). >> >> Mentioning ratification and legal standards leads us to the third >> option, which is the one I favor. If the clause is activated, and the >> clause is “silent” on its explicit scope (by not saying things like >> “actual physical real”), that by default scope is to set up a legal >> fiction that the universe was destroyed for the purposes of rule and >> gamestate interpretation, without purporting to change “external” >> reality. Setting up of legal fictions, mainly these days through >> ratification, has long been embraced by Agora, and so this, is what I >> find that (by default) such a clause would “purport” to do if >> successfully activated: it would create a legal fiction that the >> universe has been destroyed. >> >> So, now that we (finally) know what such a clause purports to do, what >> would be the effect of accepting such a legal fiction? >> >> Well, that wholly depends: is the gamestate itself a part of the >> Universe, or apart from it? >> >> Insomuch as the universe is defined as “everything”, it would seem at >> first to be a no-brainer that the gamestate is a part of the universe. >> If so, then activating the clause would destroy the game - the rules, >> the switches, the gamestate. It would just end the game, and have the >> same effect as a simple high-powered statement “rules to the contrary >> notwithstanding, the game is over”. Clearly the Protections stop this >> from happening (R1698 is explicit that Agora can’t cease to exist), but >> if the Protections weren’t there, the game would, in fact, end. >> >> However, I reject this supposition as well. I do not believe we treat >> the gamestate as part of the universe. In our words and deeds, we are >> committed Platonists with respect to the gamestate, as is evidenced by >> many aspects of our culture: our CFJs, our discussions of the “true” >> gamestate, and our very name of Agora, bringing to mind ancient >> philosophy, leads me to conclude: The “gamestate” is part of Plato’s >> perfect forms - like infinity, it exists apart from our imperfect and >> quantized universe. While we can never come to a true logical >> conclusion on the truth or existence of the gamestate’s Platonic form, >> we can make the decision to believe in it: just like we assume as an >> axiom the existence of free will (in R869, and philosophically in >> judgements such as CFJ 1895). And thus, I find that one of our >> fundamental Agoran axoims, strongly held in our culture as evidenced by >> the Caller’s impassioned arguments, is that the gamestate exists “apart” >> from the physical universe in some kind of Platonic perfect state. >> >> So: Agora exists apart from the universe, and the universe is (legally) >> destroyed. What happens? Well, the gamestate ceases to recognize any >> inputs from the universe as being valid (how could they be valid if the >> universe is destroyed?) In particular, the gamestate recognizes that >> fora are external (assumed in R478 to exist without being explicitly >> defined) as are natural persons (originators of free thought) - >> therefore the game would not recognize any persons nor fora nor >> communications as existing or valid. So far so good. >> >> But a third thing is that the passage of time - an inherent part of the >> universe - would not continue to exist for legal purposes. Without the >> Protections, this would put the game in a suspended state: existing, but >> refusing to recognize any external inputs or the passage of time - pure >> and perfect, it would be encased in its own solitary existence with no >> way to break out. >> >> With the Protections, it’s a bit more puzzling. Since the game wouldn’t >> end or cease to exist, R101 would not be protective, nor would the >> “cease to exist” clause in R1698. At first, it would seen that R1698 >> would protect us as there would be no way for proposals to be adopted >> within 4 weeks. However, if time has stopped, that may not be true! >> How do you measure whether something can happen “within 4 weeks” if that >> 4 weeks never passes? (Any B-Nomic denizens remember the Game Clock?) >> After all, if time were to start again, it would mean the universe (and >> fora, and persons) were back and we could proceed as usual. >> >> This brings me to my final conclusion. Quite simply, when Agora ceases >> to recognize the external universe, it ceases to recognize inputs from >> persons and fora and the passage of time, but it continues to exist. >> Therefore many of the clauses of R101 and R1698 are not triggered. Time >> would stop, but since it would still be possible to pass rules *if* time >> became measureable again, the “within 4 weeks” clause of R1698 would not >> be triggered. The “destroy the universe” clause would take effect in >> spite of the protections, and we would have finally achieved a perfect >> Agora, shining and trapped in metaphorical amber, perfectly capable and >> ready for playing, but waiting for a universe that no longer exists. >> >> TRUE. >> >> >> ARGUMENTS BY ARIS: >> >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> >>> Arguments: >>> >>> The rules are, for game purposes, omnipotent. In coming together to >>> play this game, we do something amazing. We create reality. When I say >>> I give someone a shiny, it is not my intent merely to have everyone >>> pretend that I have given a shiny. It is my intent to actually give >>> that person a shiny. All players eventually come to believe that there >>> is a "platonic" reality that they affect with their game actions. >>> That's a major part of why I play. If "reality" disagrees with the >>> rules, there is a very real sense in which reality is wrong. The fact >>> that we can change something by agreeing upon it is truly amazing. On >>> the site it says that many players view Agora as "an experiment in >>> philosophy, political science, and group dynamics, rather than just a >>> game". I do, and the biggest part of the experiment for me is that we >>> change our vision of reality by passing a proposal. The fact that we >>> can change what we believe is an exhilarating experience. Changing >>> what one belives is not generally easy, but we've all agreed that >>> Agora means something and that the rules are true, and that's truly >>> special. I feel so strongly about this point that I somewhat regret >>> bringing it up, because I'm terrified that the ruling might be that >>> I'm wrong. If so, I don't really know what I would do. I might >>> deregister, I might moot, I might keep on playing and just not believe >>> the CFJ (they aren't inherently binding). >>> >>> I humbly request that your honor does not rule that the rules as a >>> whole can be wrong. This is a point so basic that it cannot be proven >>> using rule text, for obvious reasons. If you want to rule that you are >>> restricted to interpreting rule text, and want to stick to the >>> requirements that the rules are "unlimited in scope", have the >>> "capacity to govern the game generally", and that "when interpreting >>> and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence" then >>> that's fine. If you want to rule that the point is non-falsifiable, or >>> is a matter of personal interpretation, and is therefore out of scope, >>> then that's also fine. I submit to you however, that a ruling that the >>> rules as a whole couldn't do something would be along the same lines >>> as a judge ordering that a section of eir constitution was >>> unenforceable because it was wrong. You would be attempting to use the >>> power of the rules (as a judge) to take away power from the rules >>> themselves. In taking away the absolutely binding status of the rules, >>> you would, in my opinion, strip the game of meaning. >>> >>> The other aspects of the case are irrelevant by comparison. I would >>> suggest the resolution that the destruction of the universe would be >>> irrelevant to gameplay, because the rules and that which they define >>> would continue to exist platonically in the void (ideas don't need the >>> universe or physical reality to function). The only issue is that the >>> destruction of the universe could be interpreted as also destroying >>> the players. Whether this would trigger Rule 1698 is a matter of how >>> you interpret the definition of ossification: >>> >>> "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination >>> of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made >>> and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." >>> >>> What is the effect of an action that makes it impossible for there to >>> be any players? It's somewhat ambiguous if Rule 1698 bars the >>> deregistration/destruction of the last player, or only really has >>> meaning if there are players. My suggested resolution is that the rule >>> does indeed bar the elimination of players, because that would make it >>> impossible for them to take actions, thus making it possible to do >>> what is described. This position is supported by common sense and the >>> interests of the game, which disfavor actions likely to cause the >>> game's effective nonexistence and permanent stasis, which is after all >>> what Rule 1698 is specifically designed to prevent. However, I would >>> not necessarily disagree with an alternate interpretation. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant 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." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is CFJ 3580. I assign it to G. >>>>>> >>>>>> [note to Aris: despite yesterday's discussion, while I believe a >>>>>> judge would >>>>>> not be *wrong* in finding this case irrelevant, I am in fact quite >>>>>> interested >>>>>> in the philosophical underpinnings, so I "favored" it and and I plan >>>>>> to give >>>>>> it a full consideration as per your request. I don't actually know >>>>>> where I'll >>>>>> end up with it at the moment]. >>>>>> >>>>> Thank you. I want to provide arguments, but it may take a few days. >>>>> There is one point that I feel very very strongly about (either the >>>>> rules are omnipotent or, alternately, the issue is out of scope), and >>>>> I have a few suggestions about how to deal with everything else. >>>> >>>> Hi Aris, >>>> >>>> I pretty much need to write this one up tomorrow or I won't get to it >>>> before >>>> the deadline, just a friendly warning if you still feel "very very >>>> strongly" >>>> about stuff! (I think I know where I'm going with it so don't feel >>>> obliged, >>>> but of course I'll study & consider anything provided). >>>> >>>> -G. >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- >From V.J. Rada
