Any player CAN judge this CFJ without 3 objections, given that our Arbitor
is missing.
Also... given the complexity of Agorant, and this CFJ, a well reasoned and
explained judgement would probably be deserving of at least a J.N. Degree.
(at least... in my opinion).
Just to incentivize people!
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 3:09 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Alright, just to ensure this gets to list, here were the secrets for
> > Agoran't:
> >
> > Letter -> role list:
> >
> > A. Protector Protector Destroyer Subtracter Destroyer Protector
> > Metawinner Adder Protector Destroyer Subtracter Metawinner Destroyer
> Adder
> > B. Destroyer Protector Metawinner Metawinner Protector Protector
> > Subtracter Destroyer Destroyer Destroyer Adder Protector Adder Subtracter
> > C. Protector Adder Subtracter Protector Protector Destroyer Protector
> > Adder Metawinner Metawinner Subtracter Destroyer Destroyer Destroyer
> > D. Metawinner Protector Protector Adder Subtracter Metawinner Destroyer
> > Destroyer Destroyer Subtracter Destroyer Adder Protector Protector
> > E. Protector Adder Adder Destroyer Protector Metawinner Destroyer
> > Metawinner Destroyer Destroyer Subtracter Protector Protector Subtracter
> > F. Metawinner Metawinner Adder Destroyer Adder Destroyer Subtracter
> > Protector Protector Destroyer Subtracter Protector Destroyer Protector
> > G. Protector Destroyer Subtracter Subtracter Metawinner Adder Protector
> > Adder Metawinner Protector Destroyer Destroyer Protector Destroyer
> >
> >
> > Letter -> role index (1-based):
> >
> > A. 1
> > B. 1
> > C. 2
> > D. 5
> > E. 1
> > F. 1
> > G. 2
> >
> >
> > Letter -> person:
> >
> > A. Kate @ kate dot agora at katherina dot rocks
> > B. Kiako @ its dot kiako at gmail dot com
> > C. secretsnail @ secretsnail9 at gmail dot com
> > D. Murphy @ murphy dot agora at gmail dot com
> > E. Janet @ janet dot agora at unspecified dot systems
> > F. 4st @ 4st dot nomic at gmail dot com
> > G. Yachay @ yachaywayllukuq at gmail dot com
> >
> >
> > This gives the following letter -> role map:
> >
> > A. Protector
> > B. Destroyer
> > C. Adder
> > D. Subtractor
> > E. Protector
> > F. Metawinner
> > G. Destroyer
> >
> >
> > And thus the following player -> role map:
> >
> > Kate: Protector
> > kiako: Destroyer
> > secretsnail: Adder
> > Murphy: Subtractor
> > Janet: Protector
> > 4st: Metawinner
> > Yachay: Destroyer
> >
>
> I award Kate the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award kiako the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award snail the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award Murphy the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award Janet the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award Yachay the Patent Title of Champion.
>
> Note: some of the above awards fail.
>
> CFJ: As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Kate and Janet
> won the game.
>
> Arguments:
>
> There's a lot of things to consider for this CFJ, but the obvious one is
> whether festivity was ratified to be 5 due to an obfuscated tailor's
> festivity announcement.
> If it was, Kate and Janet's power 3 dictatorship proposal likely passed and
> did things, which should still be looked into, but probably makes them win.
> If not, snail's dictatorship likely passed instead, and should similarly be
> looked into, but additionally any methods for changing the rules at that
> state need to be examined.
>
> CFJ: As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, snail won the
> game.
>
> CFJ: As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Murphy won the
> game.
>
> Arguments: Knowing which dictatorship passed is needed to exactly get the
> rule count when the tournament ended, and the enactment of multiple rules
> with the same attributes also needs to be considered.
>
>
> Specific arguments for festivity never being 5 in Agoran't:
>
> From Rule 2480 (Festivals):
>
> In addition, while Festivity is
> non-zero, the Tailor SHALL announce its value each week; a public
> document purporting to be such an announcement is self-ratifying.
>
> The text of the rules says a public document must purport to be "such an
> announcement" to be self-ratifying.
>
> Kate sent an ADoP report with the following hidden message:
>
> {{
>
> UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1]
>
> Office Days Until Last Election
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Absurdor 00 Days (never)
> Assessor 00 Days (never)
> Buttonmastor 00 Days (never)
> Collector 00 Days (never)
> Dream Keeper 00 Days (never)
> Herald 00 Days (never)
> Prime Minister 00 Days (never)
> Promotor 00 Days (never)
> Referee 00 Days (never)
> Registrar 00 Days (never)
> Rulekeepor 00 Days (never)
> Stonemason 00 Days (never)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a
> candidate) 90 days after the previous one (or if it's interim and no
> election is ongoing).
>
> Once a quarter, the ADoP SHALL start an election for 2 to 4 offices that
> haven't had one for at least 180 days (90 for Prime Minister). Festivity
> is 5. SHOULD prioritize those that have gone the longest without one.
>
> }}
>
> Note the strange grammar here. "Festivity is 5.SHOULD prioritize those that
> have gone the longest without one." what exactly this communicates is
> unclear.
>
> Does this message, in the ADoP's report, purport to be "such an
> announcement" from before? That is, does it claim to be the announcement of
> Festivity's value that the tailor SHALL make each week while Festivity is
> non-zero?
>
> If this was an announcement of the Festivity being 0, it would not be
> claiming to be this announcement, as the announcement is only required when
> the festivity is non-zero.
>
> Similarly, as the announcement was in the ADoP's report, it would not be
> claiming to be this announcement, as the announcement is only required of
> the Tailor. It is instead claiming to be an announcement of festivity made
> in the ADoP's report, in the section on upcoming elections.
>
> For the best interests of Agora, this should not have worked: modifying
> voting strength so drastically could lead to a power 3 dictatorship, as
> seen to happen, which is very dangerous for the game. Especially in
> Agoran't, which had different standards for rule interpretation because of
> the low laudability of all the players except one, affecting the best
> interests of Agoran't.
>
>
> --
> snail
>
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
