============================== CFJ 2197 ==============================
The CotC CAN assign a judge to a CFJ initiated in the quoted
Called by ais523: 25 Sep 2008 21:39:16 GMT
Assigned to G.: 28 Sep 2008 22:20:01 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 29 Sep 2008 03:57:57 GMT
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 22:37 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> One of B Nomic's major rules is that it allows Transactions which act
> pretty much exactly as Pavitra attempted. I went and did a trivial
> paradox scam using them in B (which everyone ignored, due to wins having
> been repealed), and I can try something very similar here in Agora
> (which I don't expect to win, but may as well see what happens):
> I perform all the actions in the following block of text, if and only if
> they would all be successful, and every non-action statement in that
> block of text would be true at the time it was made:
> I call for judgement on the statement "Goethe is wearing a hat."
> The previous action either failed or was never made because either this
> block of text contained an action which would not be successful, or it
> contained a statement that would not be true.
> (This is about as close as I can get to the paradox I created in B, but
> using Agoran terminology; I've translated it more or less literally,
> thus causing the extra complexity).
Judge G.'s Arguments:
With the specific exception of conditional voting, allowing conditional
actions is a game custom and courtesy and not a rules requirement. As
such, accepting conditionals is an "administrative convenience" similar
to allowing multiple actions in a single statement (c.f. Judge Michael in
CFJ 1584). Just as the fact that we accept multiple actions does not
extrapolate into "I do X an infinite number of times" succeeding (CFJ
1584), setting up a trivial paradoxical conditional does not set up some
kind of paradoxical game state in which this question is undecidable; it
merely means the attempted communication as a whole is "too inconvenient"
to follow the customary courtesy and is thrown out. I judge FALSE.