On 2018-02-07 10:04, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 09:59 +1100, Madeline wrote:
From the Ruleset:
Rule 2518/0 (Power=3.0)
Determinacy
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
That's Power 3, which overrides all the nonsense about winning by
paradox ANYWAY by cleanly resolving any paradoxes that do happen to
occur.
Can we just repeal winning by paradox? It's literally ONLY there so
people can scam it, it doesn't serve any real purpose.
That rule doesn't actually /do/ anything to a paradox, though. It
simply notes the presence of one.
Its main purpose is to prevent "outside paradoxes" (e.g. in a contract,
a conditional vote, or an outside-Agora legal code) affecting the
gamestate (via being referenced in rules that trigger off a condition).
Other rules give clear instructions on what to do about indeterminate
values, while the paragraph on when to find a case PARADOXICAL makes no
mention of indeterminacy - suggesting that if it can be resolved through
the methods given (which they can, I'm typing it up right now) then it's
not PARADOXICAL.
