From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Sat Mar 9 18:26:00 1996 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA29526 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:25:59 -0600 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA04663; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:38:50 -0800 Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:38:48 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA04643 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:38:48 -0800 Received: from torii.triple-i.com (torii.triple-i.com [192.94.150.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA04614 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:38:44 -0800 Received: from siesta (siesta+.triple-i.com [192.94.150.7]) by torii.triple-i.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA15862 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:38:07 -0800 Received: from pak by siesta (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14835; Sat, 9 Mar 96 15:38:06 PST Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 15:38:06 PST From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9603092338.AA14835@siesta> Received: by pak (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27454; Sat, 9 Mar 96 15:38:06 PST To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Concurring Opinion in CFJ 861: Chuck and elJefe Cc: jlc@triple-i.com Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO ====================================================================== CONCURRING OPINION IN CFJ 861 "Rule 1600 should be interpreted such that its condition for self-repeal can never be fulfilled, as long as the Rules themselves can be changed." ====================================================================== Judge: Swann Judgement: FALSE Caller: Kelly Barred: Morendil, Vanyel, Doug On Hold: Blob, Doug Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coren, dcuman, elJefe, favor, Ghost, Greycell, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Murphy, Steve, Swann, Zefram Archivist, please file. ====================================================================== History: Called by Kelly, Thu, 7 Mar 96 16:43:28 EST5 Assigned to Swann, Thu, 7 Mar 96 14:03:59 PST Judged FALSE by Swann, Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:16:11 -0500 Concurring opinion (appended) by Chuck and elJefe, 9 Mar 1996 ====================================================================== Argument (Kelly): I contend that as long as the Rules are subject to change, it is never the case that the Game State is such that a given Judgement cannot be overturned. Even if the Rules as they presently exist leave no further avenue of appeal by which a given Judgement might be overturned, as long as the Rules can be changed, then a Rule might be adopted that would open a further avenue of appeal, or even overturn the Judgement directly. Hence, as long as the Rules can be changed, no Judgement is absolutely immune to being overturned. Evidence: Rule 1600/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Standard Mathematics Except where the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have the definition usually given to it in standard mathematics. In particular, "number" shall mean "real number." If a Judgment is made to the effect that the provisions of the first two sentences of this Rule would govern play even in the absence of this Rule, and the Game State is such that that Judgment cannot be overturned, then this Rule automatically repeals itself. History: Created by Proposal 2495, Feb. 16 1996 ====================================================================== Decision of Judge Swann: FALSE I admit that Kelly has made a logical argument that, on its face, is reasonable and hard to assail. But just as arguments about word meanings in a prior CFJ, I believe kelly's point of view suffers from a focus that avoids the broader implications of her argument. In fact, I believe that kelly was misled by the clause "the Game State is such," whis is essentially prefretory and meaningless. (In the Judges opinion the Rule's meaning would be exactly the same if the phrase was stricken from the Rule.) Reduced to essentials, Rule 1600 says something equivelent to: "If X cannot happen, then Y will occur." Kelly's argument, reduced to essentials is: "If the Rules can change, X can always occur." In the case of 1600, the Statement can be argued to make a certian amount of sense. But the essential flaw of Kelly's argument is illuminated when we take as an example another Rule of clear meaning, that uses the same generic construction as 1600: >From 1456: "If a Party cannot fulfill the Terms of the Contract because to do so would conflict with the Rules, e is required to Breach the Contract and must suffer the penalties for a Breach." First off, this is obviously the same construction as the language in 1600. The flaw here is obvious. Kelly has assumed that the phrase "X cannot happen" provides a continuing universal phrohibition-- which with a changable ruleset can never apply-- when Rules of this construction are much more limited in scope. Kelly is reading, "If X can never ever happen as long as Agora exists. . ." When the Rule says, "If X cannot happen at a specific point in time. . ." In the cases of both these Rules, the point in time is obviously the first point at which X cannot occur. In the specific case of 1600, the Rule shall repeal itself as soon as there exists a moment when the Judicial decision in question cannot be appealed-- the possibility of future amendments to the Ruleset shant save it, since it will already be gone. I find the statement, therefore, FALSE. ====================================================================== CONCURRING OPINION ON CFJ 861 Sponsors: Chuck, elJefe We believe that Judge Swann's Judgement of FALSE on CFJ 861 is correct, but we do not agree with his reasons. CFJ 861 is trivially false, in that it is simple to imagine an evolution of Nomic in which some of the Rules are changeable and others immune to change, and those immune to change always take precedence over those which are changeable. There are already games, in fact, in which the Rules are changeable, except for a central core of Rules which may not be changed; the card game Mao is one of these. In such a case, one can imagine a game (whether it can be called a Nomic is a question of semantics) in which some of the Rules can be changed, but the unchangeable Rules prevent a Judgement from being overturned. Suber raises the question of whether any Rule can ever be made truly immutable; but we believe that that is more a question of practicality rather than theoretical possibility. ======================================================================