I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and > doshes > aren't rules defined or described, so don't have anything to do with > earning > shinies, so whether someone distimmed eir doshes is irrelevant to the > state of > shinies. > > IRRELEVANT is also appropriate for your first assertion in that judgement: > if you say "we can't know until the auction is over because other things > might happen" then the question is "overly hypothetical" which is a > specific > use for IRRELEVANT. (IRRELEVANT is really a special case of DISMISS: > "overly hypothetical" is a special case of "insufficient information" - so > DISMISS is just fine as a judgement even if it's not absolutely precise). > > An "Invalid bid" is a bit different, because you can in a common-sense way > define what is meant by that: e.g. "a clear attempt to bid using language > in the rules for bids and numbers" and adjudicate on whether the bid was > in fact a bid. But as I said, it's a fine line and others might put > "invalid bids" into the same bucket as doshes (though I don't think doshes > fit in buckets). > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >