Re: [s-b] [Oracle] judge assignments

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:20:19 -0400, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> CFJ 9, called by Walker, "JamesB cast a valid vote AGAINST on the
> decision whether to adopt proposal 1989." is assigned to Judge 0x44.
> 
> CFJ 17, called by Marr965, "Game Objects defined by Rules are
> destroyed when the rules that define them are repealed." is assigned
> to Judge 0x44.

I answer CFJ 9 FALSE. 

We use the word "change" 36 times in the logical ruleset to reflect
permitted alterations to the ruleset and gamestate, but we do not use the
word in Rule 24. This is intentional, since during the B-Gora era (from
which we seem to be extricating ourselves) there were multiple types or
classes of Decision, on whose voting Rule 24 must have generalized. We
still retain a distinction between Ordinary and Democratic decisions,
though we have thrown out the other decision types. Proposal 1988 was an
Ordinary decision, and a Player may cast up to eight votes in a single
ballot on such a decision, should e have the vote power. If a player were
to cast eight votes on a decision and then announce e was changing his vote
on that decision, to which vote does he refer? It seems ambiguous, e could
refer to the entire ballot (in which case e should have announced e was
changing his ballot), or to a single, unspecified, platonic vote on the
ballot. In the case of JamesB, e did not have the vote power to cast
multiple votes on the decision, so we can deduce from his announcement that
e intended to alter the single vote e cast. Somewhere between the general
and specific cases the ambiguity is dropped, and I do not feel that we
should have one manner of altering ones vote in the singular sense and
another in the plural. 

Furthermore, JamesB's argument that 'changing' is natural language and
'common sense' indicates that changing a vote must be equivalent to
withdrawing it and casting a new one, I refer again to the 36 instances we
use it in the logical ruleset. According to thesaurus.com, "change" is not
a synonym for "retract and recast", and so if we accept JamesB's 'common
sense' argument, we would have to alter every instance of the word
"change", "changing", "changed", or "changes", to reflect this new 'common
sense' definition, which would prevent any future alterations to the
ruleset, Rule 31 would prevent such a change from occuring. 

I answer CFJ 17 trivially TRUE, it says so right in Rule 32. If Judges were
still permitted to levy punishments for wasting the court's time, I would. 




_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business