On 5/6/2020 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 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.
Final thought for the moment: this could turn into a long essay on the role of the judiciary, but it's not for the good of the game to take ambiguity that was created legislatively and on-purpose by the voters, and has been fixed legislatively and on-purpose, and insert an arbitrary judicial determination about the interim state when there's no emergency reason to do so (separation of powers and all that).
