(I wrote this before seeing Ørjan's reply)
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
