ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2024-07-28 at 16:25 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
Gratuitous:
* Jaff has been Speaker since April.
* On or about June 4, ais523 won (Paradox, Zen, High Score).
* On or about June 22, Janet won (Zen).
* On or about June 27, snail won (Bangs).
* On or about July 18, Mischief won (Bangs).
* On or about July 23, 4st attempted to deputise to appoint snail
(ineffective, the duty is to appoint a Laureled player, and snail
was no longer Laureled), then attempted to appoint Mischief
(ineffective because the previous attempt failed to make 4st PM).
* In response to 4st's attempts, Janet attempted to deputise to
appoint Mischief. PM is not vacant, so R2160(7) applies:
a) wasn't true (intent wasn't announced earlier).
c) wasn't true (attempted deputisation wasn't temporary).
b) may have been true. If each win created a separate "CAN once"
ability and corresponding duty, then exactly one of those
duties (the one starting on or about June 27) was within the
14-to-28 day window. If the first win created a single ability
and duty that persisted thereafter (with the later wins merely
moving its target), then it was outside that window.
I don't have a strong opinion which interpretation should win. I'm not
recording the events in the ADoP database at this time, but that's just
because from a technical standpoint it's easier to add them later if the
CFJ is judged TRUE, rather than revert them if it's judged FALSE.
Gratuitous: I won on July 19 (by exploiting a bug in the cleanup
procedure for Win by Paradox), which is probably relevant.
Oh yes, I forgot to catch up on ALT before writing the above. So this
should be a trivial FALSE, as Janet also attempted to appoint a player
no longer Laureled.
--
[ANSC H:GE V:G B:0]
