On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/15/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I call for judgement on this statement: It is both possible and true > that a > > rule named "A coin award" took the game action of increasing the number > of > > coins R. Lee owned by 1. > > I call for judgement: The above CFJ statement is about the possibility > of a > > game action so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a > judgement > > of PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > > > Alright, because this is an explicit win attempt, I feel obligated to > attempt to poke some holes in it: > > 1. There no longer exists a rule named "A coin award", so perhaps FALSE > on that grounds. > > 2. Even if the statement is PARADOXICAL, you can still get IRRELEVANT. > You may have manufactured relevance to the gamestate, but there are > three conditions for IRRELEVANT in R591, and meeting any of them gets > you an IRRELEVANT judgement: > > - not relevant to the game; with your pledge, this condition is not met > because of your pledge > > - overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game; not met, not a > hypothetical > > - trivially determinable from the outcome of another case; this > condition is met, it is trivially determinable from CFJ 3828, earning > you an IRRELEVANT judgement > That last point should thwart the attempt. -Aris > > >
