Aris wrote:
I have some final notes. First, we need to resolve the cultural dissonance between a model that is built to accept paradoxes and one that is built to avoid them. Note that neither of these models suggest that we should go around legislating in a way that causes paradoxes. The question is more how high a standard judges should apply before deciding that things really are just paradoxical. Currently, Agora doesn't seem to have made up its mind, and that can't go on.
Gratuitous: I believe the collective intent of Agora is to accept novel paradoxes, but then legislatively error-trap the source or otherwise fix the relevant rules, lest they lead to an arbitrary number of additional wins just by repeating the first winner's actions.
