On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > > > most defined win conditions.
> > > >
> > > > A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> > > > someone wins the game (R2186).
> > >
> > > A win announcment need not state that someone wins the game. Most of
> > > mine didn't. (Normally, I make two announcements, e.g. "This is a Win
> > > Announcement: ais523 has 100 points", then a rules-irrelevant and
> > > ISIDTID "I win the game" to clarify.)
> >
> > Oh but waitaminute, you can't get rid of the "and" so easily!
> > A win announcement is a factually correct announcement
> > explicitly labeled as a win announcement and/or clearly stating
> > that one or more persons win the game.
>
> Err, what? "and/or" is a usual legal abbreviation for inclusive or (i.e.
> "and or or").
>
> The definition of a win announcement always used to be just the first
> part (the explicit labeling as a win announcement). Because some people
> tried to win and forgot to say "Win Announcement:", the rule was amended
> as a courtesy to newbies, pretty much, the same way that we allow
> slightly malformed registrations. The old method, stating that the
> announcement was a win announcement, continued to work; if the new
> method was broken, that still has no impact on the old version.
We're getting closer here. I gotcha there, but I think the new version
also broke a feature of the old version and your example above. Would
you agree that an equivalent reading is:
"A win announcement is a factually correct statement that is either
(a) correctly labeled as a win announcement; or
(b) states that one or more people win; or
(c) both."
I think that's what you're saying and I agree.
The problem now is (if we accept that it's circular to say that
one or more people won in order to cause those one or more people
to win) that:
If you choose option (a), you're fine;
If you choose option (b), it's broken;
BUT. If you choose option (c), and happen to mention "I win" (or
that anyone else wins) as part of the win announcement, it's circular
again (and broken because it loses its truthfulness).
Thus leading to the paradox that if a self-causing win announcement
(labeled or not) actually states that someone wins (in the nature
of your "irrelevant ISID"), it fails.
It also means that: "Win announcement: Proposal X is adopted. I win."
might work because the "I win" comes later than the announcement and
might be considered post-announcement (but of course we aren't delimiting
these carefully), but: "Win announcement: I win due to Proposal X" is
broken.
-G.
