To Yachay's points: I've addressed the unreasonable claim that we could
reinterpret any rule change ambiguously: we could consider most or all rule
changes to be ambiguous, for example in reference to some other "rule 879"
or something: and we don't. Why don't we? "reasonability"
To Janet's points
* was never added in the first place because it would ossify the game.
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:08 AM Yachay Wayllukuq
wrote:
> Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any*
> ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> void and without ef
Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any*
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was never actually added in the first
place, because that's another interpretation that keeps the game
playable, just deferring t
On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying "*Any* ambiguity in
> the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
> without effect."
>
> Of course, this compromise-based definition of
Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying "*Any* ambiguity in
the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
without effect."
Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary
And that's the compromise that Agora assumes for what ambiguity is, and
that's fine with me. It's just that, if we take "ambiguity" by a
sufficiently strict definition, everything technically ends up having some
iota of ambiguity; which isn't very practical for a game.
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:3
My argument can be applied to specific parts of the gamestate too. I'll
formulate it in a different way.
Be a "Janet Surprise" a moment like recently where we were blindsided by an
insightful player who found that we were actually wrong about what we
thought a specific part of the gamestate to be,
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 22:04 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
> is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
> define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more p
On 5/10/23 16:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
> reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you have
> currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception as
> the mech
I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you have
currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception as
the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the
information ob
One other thing that's totally unspoken in the rules but exists in the
common-law of CFJs is that it's acceptable to find "to the
preponderance of evidence" for factual questions. This used to be
codified - but we repealed that codification for whatever reason. But
it was still established enough
On 5/10/23 15:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
senses or way
I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
senses or ways".
I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our percept
On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
"Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my point.
It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, yes,
I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity needs
to be "re
Sorry, that was probably a bad example. G. has much more eloquently
explained what I mean.
"Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my point.
It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, yes,
I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, th
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
> believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
> ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to
On 5/10/23 14:13, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity in
that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.
It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen.*Any*.
That's not ambiguity in the rule change tho, it's
I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity in
that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.
It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen. *Any*.
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:08 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/10/23
On 5/10/23 13:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without e
If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was added to the game.
I feel like the game culture spec
On 5/10/23 13:19, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> Thank you for your copyediting, I know it's not an opinion you want
> officialized.
>
> Hopefully the following draft is more amenable, as I have fully removed all
> three offending sections.
>
>
> (Draft ruling)
> Summary of Evidence:
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:20 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/8/23 16:08, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
> > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The below CF
On 5/8/23 16:08, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st.
>>
>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
>>
>> =
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
>
> === CFJ 4023 ===
>
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
