I, unsurprisingly, disagree. You assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between
intents and announcements of intents. I'd argue otherwise—I announced the same
intent in both messages. The rules don't define what an intent is or specify
how one is created, so we fall back to the conventional English meaning. In
English, an intent is something that someone has, regardless of if they tell
anyone else about it. It logically follows, therefore, that I can announce the
same intent twice.
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Judge's arguments for CFJ 3705 and 3706:
>
> About half an hour ago, Gaelan attempted to win by exploiting a perceived
> loophole in Rule 1728. I will now quote the relevant portion of that rule,
> from the section stating the requirements for a dependent action.
>
> 1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation
> announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the
> value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days
> earlier.
>
> 2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
> Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
> least 4 days earlier
>
> Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy R1728(2)
> and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the
> assumption
> that the R1728(1) and R1728(2) intents can be separate from each other.
> However, this is not the case. While R1728(1) specifies merely (and somewhat
> ungrammatically) that the initiator must have "announced intent",
> R1728(2) discusses requirements for "the intent". The use of the definite
> article in R1728(2) means that the intent used to satisfy it must be the
> same one previously mentioned, i.e. the same one used to satisfy
> R1728(1). Thus, Gaelan cannot use one intent to satisfy R1728(1) and a
> different intent to satisfy R1728(2).
>
> I would like to congratulate Gaelan on finding the bug in Rule 2465,
> "Victory by Apathy", that means the same intent can be used infinitely many
> times. However, as the theory underlying the victory is faulty, I rule
> both these cases FALSE.
>
> Judge's Evidence:
>
> Rule 2465/0 (Power=0.3)
> Victory by Apathy
>
> A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of
> players. Upon doing so, the specified players win the game.
>
>
> Rule 1728/40 (Power=3)
> Dependent Actions
>
> A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
> an action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1
> unless otherwise specified):
>
> 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
> than 8. ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
> N = 1.)
>
> 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer. ("With
> Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
>
> 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
> with a minimum of 1.
>
> 4. With Notice.
>
> 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>
> thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of
> the following are true:
>
> 1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation
> announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the
> value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days
> earlier.
>
> 2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
> Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
> least 4 days earlier
>
> 3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
> was announced at least T earlier.
>
> 4. At least one of the following is true:
>
> 1. The performer is the initiator.
>
> 2. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
> holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.
>
> 3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
> action depends on support, the performer has supported the
> intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
> explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
>
> 5. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
> other rules.
>
> 6. If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was
> given in the announcement of intent to perform the action, all
> those conditions are met.
>
> Such an action is known as a dependent action. The actor SHOULD
> publish a list of supporters if the action depends on support, and
> a list of objectors if it depends on objections.
