On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> If two people get the same victory conditions at the exact
> same time, they clearly "tied" the Nth game. But what if they
> win 5 minutes apart? The second winner probably got most of the
> way to victory alongside the first person. Is e the "second place
> winner" of game N or the winner of game N+1?
Good point, but who says a game has to have a winner?
Also, several historical victory conditions have had some kind of
exclusion or partial reset mechanism, like
A player CAN destroy 250 points in the possession of any
indicated player to cause the indicated player to satisfy the
Victory Condition of Accumulation.
When a player satisfies the Victory Condition of Accumulation,
half of every other player's points (rounded down) are
destroyed.
or (regarding Win by Clout):
If a correct Victory Announcement is made for such a win, this
Victory Condition ceases to be a Victory Condition for Decisions
in the same Chamber for 21 days following the announcement.
> At some point in the past (who knows when), we stopped enumerating
> games and have been in the Nth game unchanging since then. The
> Nth game has accumulated many winners. Under this, "and a new
> game begins" is just a no-op, a colorful way of saying "this person
> won", while R101 makes sure that the Nth game doesn't end.
But if the rules have directly stated for a while that the game ends,
does it really make sense to claim that the "game" doesn't actually
end because the rules don't mean what they say? Where exactly is the
boundary drawn between a real game and a 'color' game? Or if there
are multiple definitions of "game", which one is the CFJ asking about?
(Note: I don't have any answer to these questions, in part because I
need sleep.)
