But yeah its a fuzzy line tbh. I can see your line of reasoning, it's like one of those illusions where you can force your eye to make the ballerina seem to rotate one way or the other.
I just wanted to mention that below lol because my head would feel constipated otherwise and I think its a cool share : P. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting, > assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect > it would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn > a Shiny?" > > So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a shiny" > > However, didn't we kick out of play considering "distimming the doshes"? > How could you use Modus Ponens on something like that? I can't process it > because it relies on something out of play! If I answered TRUE or FALSE to > that, it would be assumed that it CAN BE either one, but for that to even > be able to happen it needs to be considered for play! > > Imagine if instead of "Distimming the doshes", it was a literal image of a > potato. "[Literal image of a potato], therefore, he earned a Shiny". > > Put a different way, if I gave "Did the distimming of the doshes per se > make him earn a Shiny?" a Judgement of FALSE, that means that "Did he > distim the doshes?" isn't clogging the processing of logic because it's > considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it > could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not actually > Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?" is DISMISS! > > So, the statement of " Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him > earn a Shiny?" is also DISMISS (I assume). > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > >> >> >> No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly! >> >> I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend >> to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so >> an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga >> boogas >> that aren't there at all). This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has >> some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning >> "if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus. >> >> But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so >> your way is fine too... >> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it >> necessary. >> > >> > (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a >> > statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the >> > doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense, >> > it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the >> > statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242 >> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've >> been >> > much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the >> first >> > place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At >> least, >> > that's how I see it.) >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept >> > > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a >> > > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what. >> > > >> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still >> in >> > > > place, it would have won." >> > > > >> > > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I >> fully >> > > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the >> idea >> > > - >> > > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give >> it. >> > > > >> > > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling >> it >> > > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What >> if >> > > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at >> any >> > > > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by >> > > announcement. >> > > > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would >> cease to >> > > be >> > > > such. >> > > > >> > > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a >> judgement, the >> > > > verdict is DISMISS. >> > > > >> > > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a >> bid in >> > > > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be. >> > > > >> > > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, >> because then >> > > > this CFJ would be a question about bogus. >> > > > >> > > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the >> first >> > > > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, >> unfortunately. >> > > > >> > > > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which >> > > gives >> > > > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 ( >> > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I >> will >> > > give >> > > > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what >> this >> > > CFJ >> > > > is about. >> > > > >> > > > VERDICT: DISMISS >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >