I judge both of these FALSE. It’s pretty clear that dependent actions in general are broken. Furthermore, intents generally have to specify what action is to be performed. If a proposal said “A new Speaker is appointed”, everyone would be confused, and want to know who the the new Speaker was. This example indicates that the specification isn’t specific enough to specify an action. A more effective phrasing might be “For each player P, I intend to deputize for the PM appoint P Speaker”. I will not at this time rule whether stating an intent “for each person” would be overly broad, although personally I think it should work.
-Aris (p.s. please remember to take me off the court now) On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:37 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > In that case, you have a few options— > > 1) judge them FALSE/FALSE (which is their current truth values) > > 2) wait to see if the intent fixing proposal passes (if you think any > intent will be fixed retroactively and want the judgement to reflect that) > > > On Feb 19, 2019, at 2:49 AM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I > > believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the > interns > > are broken. How should I judge these? > > > > -Aris > > > >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister. > >> > >> I CFJ: twg is the Speaker. > >> > >> Arguements: > >> > >> 1) I won by cheating a while back (sorry!), and I think that triggered > >> ATMunn’s obligation to reappoint me as a new speaker (even though I was > >> already speaker). > >> > >> 2) Subsequently, Gaelan won by apathy, and that victory was upheld as > >> valid in a CFJ. (But maybe intents are broken? So is it really clear > that e > >> actually did win by apathy?) > >> > >> 3) Then I declared a intent to deputise for PM “to appoint a new > speaker” > >> (or similarly generic language), which G. challenged as perhaps not > >> specific enough to be a proper intent. > >> > >> 4) Then twg and I declared victory by apathy (probably?—but again, that > >> doesn’t work if intents are broken; and if intents _are_ broken, then > how > >> did Gaelan win?). > >> > >> 5) I then declared an intent to deputise for PM to appoint twg > >> specifically to be speaker. > >> > >> and then 6) I executed those intents by deputising as PM to appoint twg > to > >> be speaker (if laureled); otherwise Gaelan (if laureled); otherwise D. > >> Margaux. > >> > >> So, the questions are—did twg and I win by apathy (or are intents > broken)? > >> If we did win, then both CFJs are TRUE (I think). > >> > >> If we didn’t win by apathy, the other question is whether my “general” > >> intent was enough to deputise for PM? If so, then I am PM but twg isn’t > >> Speaker. And in that case, is Gaelan the Speaker or am I? >
