Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...

[Greg Ritter <gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:15 AM 1/28/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> So it is your opinion that the underlying logic
> of the nomiverse that allows two otherwise contradictory
> rulings to exist is that nowhere does it say that
> judgments have to agree, or have anything to do with
> one another?  Even though they both carry the Force of
> Law?

First, I don't accept the existence of a Nomiverse separate from our own 
universe, so it is my opinion that there is no separate "underlying logic 
of the Nomiverse." Nomic rules are not natural laws. I think I already went 
through this with Uncle P. I don't believe in a discrete, Platonic 
game-state either. It is all One, grasshopper; there are no shadows.

Second, "force of law" is itself fairly irrelevant. Since it's not defined 
or referred to anyplace else in the rules, the potential for either a 
strict or liberal interpretation exists. On the conservative side, one 
could argue that in the Nomiverse there are no "laws" anyway, only Rules; 
since no "laws" exist in the Nomiverse, the "force of law" has about as 
much meaning as the "force of cheese." (If I were one of the Nomic 
Platonists, I'd be taking that stance.) On the liberal, pragmatist side, 
even if they were two separate contradictory judgments on the same rule, I 
see absolutely no problem with two such judgments being in disagreement, 
any more than I see a problem with a 1998 Supreme Court ruling disagreeing 
with a 1932 Supreme Court ruling. Different courts interpret the same law 
differently all the time. I'd make the argument that (minus any rules 
otherwise regulating it) any Judgment can "overturn" a previous Judgment, 
by interpreting the previous Judgment to be a mistaken interpretation. That 
approach works whether you accept "force of law" as being meaningful or 
not, although actually it works even better if you interpret "force of law" 
as having some meaning because then a re-interpretation can implicitly take 
precedence over the original interpretation. E.g. any re-interpretation 
with the "force of law" can invalidate an earlier interpretation.

Third, the above example is irrelevant to this particular situation (but 
sort of interesting in the abstract) because it talks about different 
interpretations of the *same* rule. Even if you assume a strict, 
traditional interpretation of Force of Law (e.g. as somehow tied to Rule 
10), in this case the fact that both judgments carry the Force of Law is 
irrelevant, because they address *different* rules and situations. 
*Similar*, but still different. Nowhere is it even implied, never mind 
enforced by law (or Rules), that Rule XYZ has to be interpreted 
identically, or even in parallel, to Rule ABC. There is no contradiction. 
Rule XYZ does not have to be adjudicated by the same standard (Standard 
Alpha) that Rule ABC is judged (Standard Beta) because they are separate 
situations. When in a situation governed by Rule XYZ, judge it by Alpha. 
When in a situation governed by Rule ABC, judge it by Beta. Likewise, there 
is no requirement that they NOT be judged by the same standard, either. A 
different set of judges might have adjudicated both Rule ABC and Rule XYZ 
according to Standard Alpha (or Standard Gamma). Big deal. Not very 
interesting to me.

What *is* interesting to me is what's really going on here. I believe the 
Judgments are being rendered based on criteria entirely *outside* the 
pretend Nomiverse. Basically, imaginary players are a Bad Idea because it 
unbalances the game and makes everything less fun and more problematic. 
Note: that's not why imaginary players are invalid according to the rules; 
that's just why it's a bad idea to allow imaginary players in this game. 
But (according to some) you're not supposed to offer that up as 
justification for a judgment because it's outside the Nomiverse, so the 
Judge performs a little interpretive juggling to make the rules mean what e 
wants them to mean to make the Judgment consistent with the extra-Nomic 
desires. That's why we get similar situations adjudicated based on 
different standards. In fact, *all* Judgments are actually made this way, 
although in some Judgments it's just a lot more blatantly obvious because 
the extra-Nomic desires are not in align with the Rules.

This is why game-custom is more important than "game-state" of the 
"Nomiverse". The game doesn't exist outside of the player's reality, and 
when the going gets rough, when you get right down to the core values of 
Nomic Players -- e.g. let's enjoy playing a game together -- they'll toss 
the Grand Theory Of The Underlying Logic Of The Nomiverse out the 
window...and then try to put plastic wrap over the window and say, "No, no, 
of course I didn't break the glass. That's glass, not plastic wrap. 
Really!" :-) It happens all the time by Players and *especially* by the 
Administrator. E.g. "I'm tired of copying and pasting!" potentially has a 
lot more effect on the Nomiverse than the Rules do! :-)

There's nothing that prevents us from playing Nomic *as if* there's a 
separate Nomicverse governed by the Rules we create, but, in my opinion, 
that's simply a less enjoyable endeavor (although I'm beginning to 
deviously consider the potential of using some Players' Platonistic 
adherence to game-state as an effective strategy for messing with them, 
mwuhahahahaha!). "Force of law" is just a bit of rhetorical silliness that 
increases this kind of confusion. The only force that the Rules or 
Judgments truly have is our acceptance of them . . . or our lack of 
acceptance of those who disobey them. ;-)

--gritter