[I am not in a place to catch up with the other assignments, but
figured I could pragmatize this one with a Forward].
If I have not yet done so, I recuse twg from CFJ 3783.
If I have not yet done so, I assign CFJ 3783 to omd.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3783
=============================== CFJ 3783 ===============================
Jason Cobb has more than 2000 Coins.
==========================================================================
Caller: Jason Cobb
Judge: omd
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 07 Dec 2019 02:44:42
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On 12/6/2019 6:44 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I perform the following actions, in order, 1000 times:
{
Pursuant to Rule 2154, I declare myself the winner of the election for
the
office of Assessor that was initiated on the 7th of November 2019 (UTC).
Pursuant to the Rule with the title "Glitter", I earn 17+1=18 Coins for
earning an Emerald ribbon.
}
Proposal 8266 [ADOPTED]:
ID: 8266
Title: Glitter
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: nch
Co-authors:
Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned
it e CAN
once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins
where
N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon.
}
Excerpt from Proposal 8276 [ADOPTED]:
ID: 8276
Title: Various Election Fixes v2
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2154 ("Election Procedure") by replacing the text "declare em
the winner of the election by announcement" with the text "by
announcement declare em the winner of the election, thereby causing em
to win the election".
[This clarifies that this actually causes the person to win the
election, which could be construed as a distinct action from "declaring
em the winner". The replaced text differs from the one in the most
recent SLR because Falsifian cleaned the text by replacing "them" with
"em" since then.]
}
[Note: I have included the text of the proposals themselves, rather than the
text in the recent SLR, because the resolutions are more easily verifiable,
and I don't completely trust my SLR right now, for previously stated reasons.]
Caller's Arguments:
Under the precedent set in CFJ 1584, performing an action 1000 by saying
that one does is acceptable. Furthermore, I argue that the precedent in CFJ
1774 does not override this - this action does not create thousands of
things that must be dealt with individually (such as CFJs); it can be dealt
with by updating a few lines in the Tresasuror's report (and perhaps adding
an explanatory note), so I argue that my actions do not constitute an "abuse
of other player's time and efforts". Thus I argue that I was indeed able to
perform the actions in this message 1000 times.
Assuming the above is accepted, then I have won the election 1000 times and,
after each win, earned 18 coins. The earning of coins is effective because
there are 17 players who do not possess an Emerald ribbon (19 players total,
minus me and G.), and I did not earn any additional ribbons between earning
the Emerald ribbon and claiming the reward of coins, fulfilling the criteria
in "Glitter".
Thus, I argue that I have earned 18000 Coins, so I have more than 2000
Coins. I argue that this CFJ should be judged TRUE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The election "ends" after the first announcement:
When a player wins an election, e is installed into the associated
office and the election ends.
It's important to decide (by common definitions) what properties an "ended
election" has. An "election that has ended" may or may not still exist, but
common definitions would say it doesn't have "a single candidate" any longer
(the condition necessary to enable the announcement), rather it's an
"election with a winner".
Further, if the callers' arguments are accepted, it leads to a potential
problem. The term "in progress" isn't defined. By common definitions, if a
winner can still be declared, then the election is still in progress, even
if another part of the rule says it has "ended". The caller's
interpretation would let us look at this clause:
The above notwithstanding, an election for an office CANNOT be
initiated if one is already in progress.
and conclude that all past uncontested elections (1) can still have a winner
announced and installed in office, therefore (2) they are still "in
progress" therefore (3) no subsequent elections for those offices were ever
started.
==========================================================================
