On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:03 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> > of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> > rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
> > (not additional) information ("a win announcement that Proposal X has
> > been adopted" in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an
> > appeals directive to address this. I generally consider it additive,
> > though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't
> > affect the actual judgement.
>
> I don't see the issue here. A win announcement has to either be
> labelled as one or state that one or more players win the game in
> order to be a win announcement; and has to contain other required
> elements in order to have any effect.
G.'s argument is that a win announcement that states that a player wins
is necessarily factually incorrect, due to the causality loop, and thus
is not actually a win announcement.
--
ais523
