[blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 13/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Wayne Burrows:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient
> >evidence
>
> Fowler, "Modern English Usage":
>
> >>_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'.  The
> >>fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as
> >>much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself.
> >>
> >>*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.;
> >>other (not circular) examples are that capital
> >>punishment is necessary because without it murders
> >>would increase, and that democracy must be the best
> >>form of government because the majority are always
> >>right.
>
> Wayne Burrows:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly
> >an attempt to discourage psyches which are a legitimate
> >part of the game. To me this is in conflict with L40A.
> >Therefore I would argue it is an illegal regulation
> >L80F.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Wayne is clearly basing his argument on a "category
> mistake".  A concealed partnership understanding is not
> a psyche.  And penalising a concealed partnership
> understanding is not penalising a psyche.  And while
> Law 40A permits psyches, Law 40B prohibits concealed
> partnership understandings.
>
> If Wayne does have any point to his argument, it seems
> to be that Wayne is arguing that some concealed
> partnership understandings should go unpenalised so that
> players are not discouraged from exercising their Law
> 40A right to psyche.
>
> This seems to me to be analogous to the argument that
> some thieves should go unpunished so that the shoppers
> are not discouraged from visiting the local shopping
> mall (but I am not discouraged, since I am off to the
> Belconnen Mall now).
>
> :-)

Maybe I will get to the Belconnen Mall next week.

No Richard you miss my point.  My argument is that one instance of a
'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed partnership
agreement.

At university my statistics lecturer after we had sat a test was asked
if they had been marked.  He responded that he had been interupted
after marking only one paper but that we had done well based on "an
unbiased sample of one".

If we could establish a CPU then I would all for punishing the
players. If we cannot then I am against punishing innocent players.

Wayne