On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 07/29/2010 02:42 PM, 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). > > > > But most win conditions are not triggered until a win announcement > > is made (are triggered "upon" a win announcement). Eg. R2188, 2223, > > etc. > > > > So how can a win announcement be factually correct until a win > > announcement is made? > > > > I'm not sure if this is self-affirming (works fine) or is circular > > (broken). Thoughts? > > > > REMAND is looking better all the time... > > > > -G > > I think it's self-affirming. If I say that I take an action, it is only a > factually correct statement (and therefore legal) because the statement causes > the action to be performed. Likewise, if I make a win announcement, it is a > factually correct statement because the announcement causes a win.
Sleeping on it, I agree with you and Murphy. In fact, I dimly recall way back in 2007, we (Zefram especially) were arguing about the truth value of imperatives; if you say "I do X" does that mean that that particular statement of "I do X" is True? Or if you say "I do X" and it fails are you guilty of lying? We discovered that it had been hotly debated in philosophy in recent times (see http://www.jstor.org/pss/184947). In light of the fact that professional philosophers couldn't agree, I think we came to varied "good of the game" decisions for which self-affirming is quite reasonable. And also why the parenthetical clause on the first paragraph of R2215 now spells it out explicitly. > Also, with regards to my original complaint, my reading is that the proposal, > which purports to award a win to various players, is not the same as stating > that they win. I agree with you; among the varied Appellants' arguments, this difference between "purporting" a win, "saying" that they win, and "causing" a win, is the one most worth revisiting - I think I'll have to read everything about 5 more times but you make a very good case here. One thing in particular is that the CFJ 2808 might have been a better place to bring this up; the appeals clock has run out, but that CFJ says it's true that "Proposal 6740 awarded a win to one or more players" which implies the proposal directly awarded the win, rather than purported to do so. -G.
