R. Lee wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:39 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
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
You can't have both point two and point one, Jason! Dispensing with point
one is not trivial, and therefore it is not trivial that this CFJ is
PARADOXICAL (thus making it IRRELEVANT) if this CFJ could actually be FALSE
due to point one.
It took me a while to work out that you were referring to Jason's
outer numbers, rather than the first two of the three conditions for
IRRELEVANT.
I suppose the intent of point one is a King of England fallacy, i.e.
even if there /was/ a rule named "A coin award", there isn't one any
more, and thus the CFJ tries to refer to a nonexistent thing? FWIW, I
would interpret that the explicit past tense of "took" makes it
reasonably clear that "a rule named 'A coin award'" is also attempting
to refer to the past, thus avoids any such problems. (I suspect that
some past CFJs have been accepted on similar grounds, even if the judge
hadn't consciously considered the alternative.)
Besides, this CFJ omits two elements (of enactment and repeal) that were
decided in the previous CFJ, making it a different statement entirely. If
the paradox arose from one of those elements, there would be no paradox in
this CFJ.
Ah, because the previous statements were along the lines of "X was
enacted, did Y and was then repealed", and the judgement didn't make it
clear that "did Y" is where its paradox came from? (I suspect that it
did in fact make that clear, I'd have to go back and check though.)
