Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 5/6/2020 12:12 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote:
> 3. Therefore, if a rule says "a player earns a coin" but does not say who,
> then Rule 217 calls on us to apply its four factors to answer the question
> of who earns the coin.

Ok - I've got another set of counter-counter arguments but I'll cut to the
chase and perform this analysis anyway.

Game custom holds that we consider such things indeterminate as long as a
Rule supports that option, rather than assigning an arbitrary value
unsupported by deductive logic, because we like to debate platonic states
of things and sometimes "enjoy" exercises where we try to reduce
indeterminacy through actions that allow us to make such deductions (e.g.
everyone transferring the coin they might have to Agora).  Past precedents
hold that going through exercises like that can be successful, whereas
there's no support/precedent I know for arbitrarily assigning the coin to
someone.  Common-sense doesn't apply because the Rule itself was
purposefully lacking in common sense, so don't expect common sense to
solve it.  The "best interests of the game" are that we allow paradoxes to
function as-written, because otherwise win-by-paradox is pointless and
it's clear that players want to support that kind of thing (and such a
decision doesn't break anything, because the issue had been patched by the
time I judged).

I did actually think through these while writing the judgement, though I
maintain they're not necessary to consider at all due to the text of the
Rules.