Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #216
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Monday, January 5 1998      Volume 02 : Number 216

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:33:49 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

I've kicked this over to the discussion list where I believe it belongs.

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> > 
> > Frivolous appeals should be penalised with a large penalty.  Not doing
> > so penalises the original, honest, judge, while giving the appealer a
> > free ride.  Aside from the effort put into judgement, which in my case
> > has sometimes taken in excess of 8 hours, its a bad game risk to bet 
> > one point to yourself for one point to an appealer, who prolly is not
> > in a position close to winning.
> > 
> 
> My god, man!  Eight hours!  I once spent an entire lunch break on a
> judgment and wondered whether it was really worth the time, but I can't
> believe that the kind of effort you are putting in can be seen as typical. 
> At least I hope not!

I appreciate that judgements are difficult things, but I would note that
appeals are not necessarily trivial.  While an appellant can simply say
"Nup, don't like it" and kick it upstairs to the Supreme Court, with
inadequate reasoning they are more likely to deserve a penalty for being
frivolous.

On the other hand, some appeals involve the appellant providing a
significant amount of additional reasoning, including, but in no means
only limited to, a rebuttal of the judge's original arguments.  These
appeals, IMHO, do not deserve a minimum penalty of 15 points if they fail.

The other question is if the Judge got the answer right for the wrong
reasons.  There is nothing to stop perfectly invalid reasoning from
arriving at the correct answer in a torturous legal problem, after all,
given the possible verdicts on CFJs this should happen at least 25 percent
of the time.  Yet leaving this reasoning on the record is not a desirable
result.  

The same arguments apply to initial judgements and their appeals as to
having bicameral legislatures - the two-tier process creates a level of
review to try to maximise the wisdom that may be imparted.

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 18:12:57 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> I appreciate that judgements are difficult things, but I would note that
> appeals are not necessarily trivial.  While an appellant can simply say
> "Nup, don't like it" and kick it upstairs to the Supreme Court, with
> inadequate reasoning they are more likely to deserve a penalty for being
> frivolous.
> 
> On the other hand, some appeals involve the appellant providing a
> significant amount of additional reasoning, including, but in no means
> only limited to, a rebuttal of the judge's original arguments.  These
> appeals, IMHO, do not deserve a minimum penalty of 15 points if they
fail.
> 
> The other question is if the Judge got the answer right for the wrong
> reasons.  There is nothing to stop perfectly invalid reasoning from
> arriving at the correct answer in a torturous legal problem, after all,
> given the possible verdicts on CFJs this should happen at least 25
percent
> of the time.  Yet leaving this reasoning on the record is not a desirable
> result.  
> 
> The same arguments apply to initial judgements and their appeals as to
> having bicameral legislatures - the two-tier process creates a level of
> review to try to maximise the wisdom that may be imparted.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently and have finally reached
a conclusion. Malenkai is right in stating that frivolous appeals should be
heavily punished to try and eliminate them (hence my retraction) BUT 15
points as a minimum is too high. There have been a few cases in my time in
Acka where the judges reasoning has been something along the lines of, "I
don't really have enough time to do this properly right now but I judge
______ on the grounds that it seems the right decision." It would not be
unreasonable to want to appeal such a verdict if something important rides
on it, and since there has been no formal reasoning on it, it is difficult
to know what the final decision will be. As to Slakko's comments about
incorrect reasoning reaching the correct verdict, I believe this was what
happened in my recent PWCFJ attempt. I was writing up an appeal because I
disagreed with parts of the judges reasoning when I hit upon a reason why
it could not work. The reason why canceling the noughts was impossible is
as follows:

In conventional mathematics canceling works because anything divided by
itself equals 1 and whenever you multiply a number by 1 you get the
original number. However, dividing zero by zero does not give one.

Hence the PWCFJ should be ruled false and hence game custom and spirit of
the game (the main bit of the judges argument on which I was going to base
my appeal) do not come into it.

I'm not entirely sure what can be done to combat this problem. Bronze torch
holders have the option of adding to the records of a CFJ and so for them
it's not too bad. I would not for one minute suggest that all players
should be able to add reasoning to a CFJ as that would probably result in a
sprawling mess. The problem results from the manner in which CFJ reasoning
becomes game custom. This means that incorrect reasoning can be used again,
and next time it might be to reach an incorrect verdict.

So what's my point through all this? I would like to see a proposal similar
to proposal 2549 but with a lower minimum points loss, around about six or
seven. I would also like to see rule 217 amended so that it is explicitly
stated that unless the supreme court find the reasoning in the appeal to be
sensible, well thought out, showing a real sense that there is sufficient
doubt in the verdict of the initial judge, etc. then they should give a
large penalty. In addition it ought to be possible to appeal parts of a
judges reasoning. I'm not sure how this would work but I think it necessary
for the reasons stated above. The penalties for appealed reasoning should
not be as large as for appeals of a verdict.

The Gingham Wearer.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:19:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

>> Frivolous appeals should be penalised with a large penalty.  Not doing
>> so penalises the original, honest, judge, while giving the appealer a
>> free ride.  Aside from the effort put into judgement, which in my case
>> has sometimes taken in excess of 8 hours, its a bad game risk to bet 
>> one point to yourself for one point to an appealer, who prolly is not
>> in a position close to winning.
> 
> My god, man!  Eight hours!  I once spent an entire lunch break on a
> judgment and wondered whether it was really worth the time, but I
> can't believe that the kind of effort you are putting in can be seen
> as typical.  At least I hope not!

Eight hours is certainly not typical - I think Malenkai was giving
that as being closer to an upper limit.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt that I have spent eight hours on a single
CFJ before. CFJs 402 and 415, for example, come to mind.

Or CFJ 461 ... Malenkai and I did that one together, and it was not
pretty. There's a reason that the verdict took three weeks to return.
Don't be misled by the size of the final reasoning. We wrote *far*
more than that in our emails back and forth. There were numerous
arguments that we had to explore in great detail before we could
discount them. (Not to mention all the emails I wrote and then never
sent because I found the argument falling apart two-thirds of the way
through.)

Of course, I've been talking about Supreme Court verdicts here, which
are going to take longer just because two people have to reach
consensus over email. Not to mention that the Supreme Court is just
about guaranteed to get the hardest CFJs. I'm certain that I never
spent eight hours on a CFJ before I became a Justice. (But then again,
I never got picked to judge anything really brain-twisting, either.)

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:27:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

>> On the other hand, some appeals involve the appellant providing a
>> significant amount of additional reasoning, including, but in no
>> means only limited to, a rebuttal of the judge's original
>> arguments.  These appeals, IMHO, do not deserve a minimum penalty
>> of 15 points if they fail.

"You kids, these days, you don't know how good you got it...."

Up until last summer, the penalty for appealing a CFJ that was not
overturned was a flat, non-negotiable 25 points.

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 14:16:50 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> 
> So what's my point through all this? I would like to see a proposal similar
> to proposal 2549 but with a lower minimum points loss, around about six or
> seven. I would also like to see rule 217 amended so that it is explicitly
> stated that unless the supreme court find the reasoning in the appeal to be
> sensible, well thought out, showing a real sense that there is sufficient
> doubt in the verdict of the initial judge, etc. then they should give a
> large penalty. In addition it ought to be possible to appeal parts of a
> judges reasoning. I'm not sure how this would work but I think it necessary
> for the reasons stated above. The penalties for appealed reasoning should
> not be as large as for appeals of a verdict.
> 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.
> 

Perhaps we could try setting the default penalty to something higher than
the minimum penalty.  The minimum could remain at 1, but people will be
penalized 7 points or 10 or whatever unless the SC specifically penalizes
them less.  Hopefully a lower penalty (or even no penalty at all?) would
only be assigned to a failed appeal if the reasoning in the appeal was
very compeling, or if it otherwise appeared that it was not "trivial."

Since I haven't commented on this topic yet, I would like to say that I
don't like the idea of sending everything directly to the Supreme Court.
While there are a lot of CFJs being appealed these days, I don't think it
is such a forgone conclusion that we shouldn't even bother with other
judges.  I also agree that having one more person in on judging the CFJs
makes it that much more likely that a satisfactory verdict will be
reached.  One thing that I might support would be to send PWCFJs directly
to the Court.  These really are almost guaranteed to be appealed.  This
could be problematic though, since there is often disagreement about
whether or not a given CFJ is a PWCFJ or not...

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:23:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> I'm not entirely sure what can be done to combat this problem.
> Bronze torch holders have the option of adding to the records of a
> CFJ and so for them it's not too bad. I would not for one minute
> suggest that all players should be able to add reasoning to a CFJ as
> that would probably result in a sprawling mess.

You're not kidding. If I alone had had the ability to add reasoning to
a CFJ from the time I joined, the CFJ archives would be *huge* - and
most of it would probably not be to my credit.

> So what's my point through all this? I would like to see a proposal
> similar to proposal 2549 but with a lower minimum points loss,
> around about six or seven. I would also like to see rule 217 amended
> so that it is explicitly stated that unless the supreme court find
> the reasoning in the appeal to be sensible, well thought out,
> showing a real sense that there is sufficient doubt in the verdict
> of the initial judge, etc. then they should give a large penalty.

Actually, what I would like to see is a flat, up-front cost for
appealing a CFJ. Regardless of its outcome.

While it's nice to think that the current system encourages appealing
only when a verdict is wrong, it often doesn't quite work out that
way. The four days you have for filing an appeal (assuming you read
your mail every day) isn't always enough time to review the entire
case and determine if your appeal is really as correct as you think it
is. Even more importantly, *knowing* from the start that it's going to
cost should encourage players to make sure that they have a decent
case before jumping in. Rather than encouraging them to play the
odds, which is what we have now.

(As an aside, it would also better reflect the reality of the costs to
the Court. Frivolous appeals garner the biggest penalty to the
appealer, which is backwards in a funny sort of way, because those are
the ones that result in the least amount of work for the Court.
Assuming the original judge did their job, that is.)

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:54:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> Since I haven't commented on this topic yet, I would like to say
> that I don't like the idea of sending everything directly to the
> Supreme Court.

Indeed. Neither do I.

In fact, I cannot say this strongly enough.

I absolutely and utterly oppose any kind of CFJ automatically going to
the Supreme Court. Hell, I positively forbid it.

If any of you thought this might be a good idea: Listen up!

WE ARE NOT THE "REAL" JUDGES WHO JUST GIVE EVERYONE ELSE A FIRST CRACK
AT CFJS SO THEY CAN FEEL LIKE THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROCESS.

The Supreme Court is meant to be a last line of defense against bad
verdicts. (Well, that and also a collection of experienced players who
can be trusted to take the really excruciating CFJs seriously, no
matter how long it takes). Appeals should be the EXCEPTION, not the
NORM.

Judging CFJs is an important, nay, *critical* component of Nomic, and
should be done by everybody. It is also the component that many
players find to be the most enjoyable. (I for one would never play in
a Nomic where I didn't get to judge CFJs once in a while.)

Furthermore, do not for a minute think that the Court doesn't depend
on the prior reasonings. Nothing is more frustrating than getting an
appeal where you realize after a few days that the initiator, appealer
*and* original judge were all completely off base, and you have to
start from square one. (And few things are more irritating than
getting an appeal where any one of the three have completely punted on
supplying anything of merit....)

> One thing that I might support would be to send PWCFJs directly to
> the Court.  These really are almost guaranteed to be appealed.

While I understand why someone might think that was true, it is
actually quite wrong. CFJs 184 and 305 (and, of course, 192) come
immediately to mind as two significant PWCFJs that were successful
Cycle wins, and no one for a moment seriously thought that they were
worth appealing. (There may be others.) And there are many more PWCFJs
that were judged False and never appealed.

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:47:34 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> Perhaps we could try setting the default penalty to something higher than
> the minimum penalty.  The minimum could remain at 1, but people will be
> penalized 7 points or 10 or whatever unless the SC specifically penalizes
> them less.  Hopefully a lower penalty (or even no penalty at all?) would
> only be assigned to a failed appeal if the reasoning in the appeal was
> very compeling, or if it otherwise appeared that it was not "trivial."

The default penalty is currently 25 points, it's just that the SC normal
specifies otherwise.

> One thing that I might support would be to send PWCFJs directly
> to the Court.  These really are almost guaranteed to be appealed.  This
> could be problematic though, since there is often disagreement about
> whether or not a given CFJ is a PWCFJ or not...

That seems like a good idea to me. Not only are PWCFJs almost always
appealed, it is also very important that the final verdict is correct, due
to the importance that they have. Is there really disagreement over what is
a PWCFJ? If that is the case then wouldn't it be wise to make a player
explicitly state that they are submitting a PWCFJ? Only CFJs labeled as
PWCFJs give the possibility of a paradox win, or the possibility of
receiving the Chartreuse goose. If the SC rules that a CFJ labeled as a
PWCFJ was not, in fact, a PWCFJ the author gets the goose.

The Gingham Wearer.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 20:33:08 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

Okay, here's a thought.  breadbox makes the very cogent comment that
the Supreme Court should be the last line of defense, not the ultimate
destination for _every_ CFJ.

So what if the first appeal of a CFJ does not go to the Supreme Court,
but to another Judge?  A Judge not yet selected for that CFJ, if any;
not necessarily the Praetor, either.

Would this help at all?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Cactus World News:Urban Beaches
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
"Do you want me to talk about the dramatic unities again?"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:51:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ/Appeal RFC

> So what if the first appeal of a CFJ does not go to the Supreme Court,
> but to another Judge?  A Judge not yet selected for that CFJ, if any;
> not necessarily the Praetor, either.

My argument is based on the fact that the motivation, time,
and economics of the initiator/appealer contrast greatly
with the motivation, time, and economics of the judge, and
the analysis of that economics (which, as some may know, is
too lengthy to post here ;-), indicates a high cost of
being wrong on appeal as the proper solution, IMHO.  So this
solution will not fix that; there is still little cost to
the appealer to keep hacking.  The justice system does even
more work with another layer while the hacker enjoys a longer
free ride.  Indeed, eir chances have just *increased* under
this scheme of finding a favorable judge, with no risk.

Moreover, the high cost of a wrong appeal also provides more
motivation for the first judge and the appealer to provide
better reasoning, and I do not think this approach will 
do that.

Hopefully, frivolous appeals will just go away,
or the Court will agree with me and increase the penalties :)
If neither of these things happens, I will start writing 
treasure maps that exclude frivolous appealers :)

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:00:48 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2561

> Proposal 2561
> More Intolerance
> else...if (Henry Towsner)

> {{[I'm resubmitting this because I didn't get my vote in on time last time,
> and it should pass with that.]}}

You should've submitted it as a Foolish proposal, which would give it
double points...  Oh, well, too late now.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Cactus World News:Urban Beaches
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
We've got four big clocks, and they're all ticking.

------------------------------

End of acka-research-digest V2 #216
***********************************