I’ve submitted like four thesis by now but have never gotten a degree yet
lmao.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 19:42, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> I didn't want this to pass by without commenting - I think a
> well-written judgement that covers interesting philosophical aspects
> is a fine candidate for an Associates' degree (I think that's what
> we've done before with a few).
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:25 AM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [I don't really know what Agora's standard of scholarly worth is, but
> > I figure I might as well try. The title refers to this being a
> > hypothetical judgement about the fictional new past created by
> > ratification, which in itself is based on a hypothetical change to the
> > past when the gamestate is "minimally modified".]
> >
> > I submit the rest of this message as a thesis, and intend it to
> > qualify for a degree (whichever degree defined by Rule 1367 my peers
> > find appropriate).
> >
> > This is a hypothetical judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727, assuming D.
> > Margaux's attempt on 2019-05-26 22:50 to ratify a document without
> > objection was successful. I think it is interesting because it discusses
> > the question of whether when the Rules refer to the past, they are
> > referring to a fictional past that can be modified by ratification.
> > There are past (real) judgements that already consider this question,
> > but I don't think they go into as much detail as this one.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> > ============
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
> > "Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
> > repeat everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =====================================
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> > The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> > D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> > Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> > There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> > D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > weekly reports:
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> > omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> > D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> > Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> > Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> > > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the
> > > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> > > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> > > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> of the
> > > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
> > > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
> > > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> > >
> > > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> D.
> > > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> required
> > > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> > D. Margaux ratifies the document e earlier announced intent to ratify.
> > (This is fictional; in the actual judgement, I explain why this did
> > not succeed.)
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> > D. Margaux calls what is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
> > Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> >
> > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > ==================================================
> >
> > It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> > have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
> >
> > I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> > by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> > Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
> > of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> > INEFFECTIVE if...").
> >
> > Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
> >
> > The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
> > the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing
> > the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is
> > copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However,
> > Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information
> > in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition
> > 1 does not trigger.
> >
> > Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531:
> >
> > The officer reports were false at the time they were published. For
> > example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that many
> > players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long since
> > self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims no
> > Spaceships exist.
> >
> > Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent reports,
> > D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking action, so these two conditions do
> > not apply.
> >
> > Conditions 4 through 8 are straightforward.
> >
> > Therefore, if D. Margaux's document and reports were never ratified, the
> > attempted imposition would have been EFFECTIVE, and D. Margaux would
> > have blots.
> >
> > 4. The timeline hypothesized by rule 1551
> > =========================================
> >
> > When D. Margaux ratified eir document on May 26, according to Rule 1551,
> > the gamestate was "modified to what it would be if, at the time the
> > ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally
> > modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as
> > possible".
> >
> > (D. Margaux specified 2019-05-20 00:00 GMT as being the time the
> > document was true, but since the time was not part of the document
> > itself, it does trigger Rule 1551's clause "if the document explicitly
> > specifies a different past time...". In any case, I think the document
> > was published close enough to that time that the effect is the same.)
> >
> > To understand how Rule 1551 modified the gamestate, the first step is to
> > understand the minimal modification that is hypothetically applied at
> > the time the document was published. This minimal modification is clear:
> > all switches created directly by the Politics and Spaaace Rules are
> > modified to be at their default values, and all entities and switches
> > created by the Clork or Astronomor according to those respective Rules
> > are removed so that they do not exist in the minimally modified
> > gamestate.
> >
> > Having understood the hypothetical minimal modification, the next step
> > is to understand what would have happened from that point in time
> > onward. We end up with the following timeline:
> >
> > * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
> > * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > information in those reports.
> > * D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the investigation.
> > * Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the attempt is
> > INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules.
> >
> > In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3726
> > would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was INEFFECTIVE, and
> > the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well, since D.
> > Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee report,
> > which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called.
> >
> > 5. The gamestate after ratification
> > ===================================
> >
> > After D. Margaux ratified eir document, the gamestate was modified to
> > what it would be in the hypothetical timeline above. Our task now is to
> > determine how that modification affects the value of the two CFJs.
> >
> > I think it is clear that blot holdings are part of the gamestate. For
> > one thing, they only exist because the game defines em, and are part of
> > the state that we keep track of, so the terms "game" and "state" fit.
> > For another, blots are an asset tracked by some recordkeepor (the
> > Referee), and Rule 2166 states that the portion of a recordkeepor's
> > report that lists assets is self-ratifying, which wouldn't mean much if
> > such assets weren't part of the gamestate. Therefore at the end of this
> > message I would judge CFJ 3727 FALSE if this whole thing weren't
> > fictional.
> >
> > The harder question is whether the change to the gamestate affects CFJ
> > 3726. I believe it comes down to this question:
> >
> > Does the gamestate include information about past events, such as
> > whether the attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice was
> > effective, and is CFJ 3726 referring to the information contained in
> > the gamestate?
> >
> > If the answers are no, then CFJ 3726 should be judged TRUE, as argued in
> > Section 3 above. If the answers are yes, then CFJ 3726 should be judged
> > FALSE, according to the timeline described in Section 4.
> >
> > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
> > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
> > be doubt about this.
> >
> > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be TRUE
> > =================================================
> >
> > When the rules talk about a concept that isn't defined by the rules,
> > we generally assume they're referring to the concept in reality. For
> > example, the rules don't define what a message is, and they don't define
> > the meaning of fundamental words like "is", "for", etc.
> >
> > Therefore it's natural to assume that when the rules discuss what "was",
> > they are referring to past events. I think it's defensible to assume
> > that even if the past event being referred to is a legal fiction, the
> > rules are referring to what the Rules had to say about the legal fiction
> > in the past, rather than some new legal fiction the Rules currently
> > define about the past.
> >
> > To instead say that whenever the Rules refer to the past, they are
> > referring to some fictitious past defined by the rules, could be said to
> > be a very drastic statement, requiring strong evidence to back it up.
> >
> > 7. The past is part of the gamestate
> > ====================================
> >
> > However, I think sufficient evidence does exist to say the gamestate
> > contains information about past actions, and that the Rules refer to the
> > gamestate when they talk about the past.
> >
> > 7A. The text of the rules
> > =========================
> >
> > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
> >
> > It is not unusual to infer meanings of terms in this way. For example,
> the
> > rules never directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like
> "A
> > Call for Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that
> they
> > are associated with statements, can be judged, etc. I believe this is
> > supported by Rule 217's instruction to use common sense.
> >
> > In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> > gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> > concept of ratification:
> >
> > Rule 1551 says:
> >
> > > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
> > > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
> >
> > Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of
> > several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the
> > number of voters indicated", etc.
> >
> > In both cases, the rules talk about ratifying facts about the past.
> > Ratification involves a hypothetical gamestate minimally modified to
> > make these facts about the past true, which clarifies for us that the
> > definition of gamestate includes facts about the past. It also seems
> > likely that the new gamestate after the ratification is intended to
> > include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at
> > the same clarification.
> >
> > 7B. Past judgements about the past
> > ==================================
> >
> > Rule 217 instructs us that when the text of the rules is silent,
> > inconsistent or unclear, we should augment it with past judgements
> > (among other things).
> >
> > omd pointed out that the judgement CFJ 3337 [0] relied on
> > past events being part of the gamestate. Judge G.'s judgement of that CFJ
> > relied on the assertion that after a document stating the past date of a
> > player's registration was ratified, that player became eligible to vote
> > in a decision they otherwise would not have been eligible for, because
> > the text of the ratified document implied that they were registered at
> > the start of the voting period.
> >
> > The judgement of CFJ 2491 [1] also relied on the past being part of the
> > game state: Judge Yally's judgement was that since a document was
> > ratified implying that Rodlen became an officer sufficiently long ago
> > for em to be awarded a green ribbon, e should be awarded a green ribbon.
> >
> > Both of these judgements support the conclusion that the past is part of
> > the gamestate.
> >
> > 7C. The best interests of the game
> > ==================================
> >
> > Rule 217 also instructs us to consider the best interests of the game.
> >
> > Generally, the purpose of gamestate changes such as the effect of
> > ratification is to clarify the current situation in the game in order to
> > allow play to continue smoothly. Consider the following examples where
> > rules make actions possible or required depending on what happened in
> > the past:
> >
> > * Rule 2555: "If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any
> > blots from emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot
> > from emself by announcement."
> >
> > * Rule 2496: Whether a player can earn a reward depends on whether they
> > have fulfilled the condition in the past 7 days, and also on whether e
> > has already claimed that reward.
> >
> > * Many rules allow or require a player to take an action "in a timely
> > fashion" after a past event.
> >
> > When a ratification event clarifies the current situation in the game,
> > it would be helpful if the above examples are among the things that are
> > clarified. For example, after ratification of a document implying
> > whether or not a player has gained blots in the current week, that
> > player can confidently know whether they are able to expunge a blot. All
> > other things being equal, I think it is in the best interests of the
> > game if ratification clarifies these examples.
> >
> > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
> >
> > We could at this point try to pick and choose just those elements of the
> > past are directly relevant: e.g. since D. Margaux didn't have any blots
> > to begin with, CFJ 3726 is not relevant to whether e can expunge any
> > blots, so CFJ 3726 may not matter to the best interests of the game. But
> > I think that would be overcomplicating things. If the gamestate includes
> > the effectiveness of some past actions, it is natural to assume it
> > includes the effectiveness of all of them.
> >
> > 8. It depends on what the meaning of the word "was" was
> > =======================================================
> >
> > There's still a question of interpreting CFJ 3726 itself. I have
> > concluded that when the Rules refer to the effectiveness of past
> > actions, they are referring to information in the gamestate about the
> > past. But CFJ 3726 is not a rule. What does "was effective" mean in the
> > statement in CFJ 3726?
> >
> > Rule 591 has guidance on delivering judgements:
> >
> > > The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
> > > the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
> > > initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
> > >
> > > * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > logically false
> > >
> > > * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > logically true
> >
> > I believe "legal situation" means I should base my decision on what the
> > rules say. Moreover, the CFJ process is more useful if judgements on
> > statements agree with what the rules say about those statements.
> >
> > So, I will interpret "was effective" as referring to information about
> > the past contained in the gamestate.
> >
> > 9. Judgement
> > ============
> >
> > I would judge CFJ 3726 FALSE if this weren't all hypothetical.
> > I would judge CFJ 3727 FALSE if this weren't all hypothetical.
> >
> > [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
> > [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2491
>
