Index ← 3362 CFJ 3363 3364 → text
==============================  CFJ 3363  ==============================

    Did Machiavelli successfully attempt to to take an action in the
    quoted message?

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Bucky

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Bucky:                        08 Jul 2013 04:27:20 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     08 Jul 2013 17:11:52 GMT
Judged TRUE by woggle:                  13 Jul 2013 19:28:19 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Gratuitous: By the precedent of CFJ 2879-80, this is not scammable.
By more recent precedent, it is.  I really need to reread the rules
regularly.

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Machiavelli is required to choose an appropriate number of objections.  35
[first-class player] objections is implausibly large, being more than twice
the number of first-class players.  The number is therefore inappropriate.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2288: If a person CAN perform an action by announcement, e CAN perform
it... without N objections... where N is a number appropriate for that form of
dependent action.

----- Original Message -----
> From: Tanner Swett 
> To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 8:50 PM
> Subject: BUS: YMRC
>
> I intend, without 35 objections, to destroy one yak, under the condition
that I
> CANNOT resolve this intent successfully.
>
> —Machiavelli
>

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

"an appropriate number" presumably is meant to refer to Rule 1728's "a
positive integer no greater than 8".  Of course, this leads to the
same conclusion.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Further discussion on IRC has informed me that there is
not necessarily a conflict between those precedents (the recent
precedent I am referring to is CFJ 3339).  However, if not, there is a
conflict between both of them and 3334, 3249, 3212, 2878, all the
recent paradox wins, which are all (I believe) based on the concept
that indirectly evaluating a statement does not provide a sufficient
boundary between the actual and hypothetical logical systems - that
while we can throw up hands and draw a boundary, in the form of Messy
Statements or Determinism, of "try to evaluate this statement but
abort if it would cause a paradox", simply asking for the truth value
of a statement is not enough to do so.  Or, to be compatible with the
concept that UNDECIDABLE (and only UNDECIDABLE) is appropriate for the
CFJ, it *is* enough, but only from the perspective of an external
observer: we assume that the statement is undecidable, therefore it is
illegal to say it (in the case of 2878), therefore it is true, but
true + undecidable => undecidable, the statement is still undecidable,
therefore it is legal to stay it, true + false => undecidable, the
legality is undecidable.  Paraconsistent logic.  Either option accepts
that a statement can be neither true or false, but the 2879-80
precedent says that a legal statement is not equivalent to a logical
statement, while the paradox custom says that the statement is
incorporated directly into the logical system but comes out to be
neither true or false (but a concept of relevance stops the principle
of explosion from making all statements in the game meaningless).

Looking at it this way, the former may make more sense, and I think
the reasoning in CFJ 3339 vaguely concurs with this.  However, it does
not directly do so, and it is partially based on the existence of
UNDECIDABLE and game custom regarding paradoxes, which, again, has the
latter as precedent.  Not that we've ever been afraid to change
precedent.  I'm not sure whether I would like to change it -
sprinkling "determinate" like fairy dust isn't that fun, but it is
required in any case, because one thing we have consistently held is
that a statement is not indeterminate just because it's unknown, so
allowing non-Determinate conditions allows unknown values to be
specified, making gamestate UNDETERMINED - not eligible for a Win By
Paradox, but still destructive.

...at least the fact that quite a few players have looked at these
situations and considered them paradoxical demonstrates that I was not
completely unreasonable in setting precedent for the latter option in
CFJ 2878.  But I am annoyed that I did not give the former proper
consideration, and I believe a new case is required.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Actually, this goes back to CFJ 1787.

========================================================================

Judge woggle's Arguments:

I judge CFJ 3363 (vacuously) TRUE. Making any public statement can be
considered an action for the purposes of, e.g., specifying the alleged action
in a criminal case.

========================================================================