DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 assigned to G.
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: Gratuitous Arguments by comex: Would win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted suffice? If not (as I read it), awarding a win to one or more persons is part of the format of the announcement, so whatever is specified in place of 'one or more persons' (as long as the announcement is actually a win announcement, i.e., correct) is used for the following text. Specific followup to this argument based on recent judgement: The following announcements all work to be a win announcement for ALL persons specified as winning in Proposal 6470: One or more persons has won due to Proposal 6740 being adopted. comex has won (see Proposal 6470) [provided comex is in the set, correctly identifying one of the one or more persons directly communicates that one or more persons has won]. Proposal 6470 has been adopted due to these votes. [...] Text of Proposal 6470: [Reasonably-specified nonempty set of persons] has won. These don't work: Proposal 6740 has been adopted (no mention of one or more persons winning) One or more persons has won (no mention of proposal) comex has won (no mention of proposal) This is a borderline case: Win announcement: proposal 6470 has been adopted. Because it might be implicit in the term win announcement that one or more persons has won. But I'd personally say it doesn't satisfy the test of clearly. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment, as it implies that the win announcement is in fact the adoption of the proposal, but does not fully address whether a posting the text of a proposal purporting to award a win is the same as announcing that one or more players win the game, which is required to satisfy Rule 2186. The difference between a proposal purporting to award a win and actually setting the gamestate to award a win is interesting (and is part of this question). Here's a related question: Say the following AI-3 Proposal is adopted (and thus implemented at power-3): G. wins by the winning condition of Sheer Willpower. This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument) override the power-2 clause in R2186: The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. and also directly award a win by Sheer Willpower? In other words, proposals that say X gamestate is set to Y are generally taken to work if they are adopted at the same secured level of X gamestate. So at what point does a Proposal override the purporting to award a win clause of R2188 and actually award of a win (e.g. change the gamestate to cause the win) directly? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument) override the power-2 clause in R2186: The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. and also directly award a win by Sheer Willpower? Isn't there a precedent that the rules override the instantaneous effect of proposals, even at lower power?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument) override the power-2 clause in R2186: The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. and also directly award a win by Sheer Willpower? Isn't there a precedent that the rules override the instantaneous effect of proposals, even at lower power? I thought there was one for continuous effects versus instantaneous. So if I set power of something to -pi*i it's reset to its default somehow. But for competing instantaneous effects (awarding a win) or for changing something from one legal value to another legal value, I don't think it's addressed when it's not explicitly secured. After all, any proposal that does something like make ais523 the officeholder is outside/against the rules, but we accept it as overriding the other methods for setting such things. When it is explicitly secured, the power matters, so the AI-3 proposal would override the power-2 securing rule. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for most defined win conditions. A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that someone wins the game (R2186). But most win conditions are not triggered until a win announcement is made (are triggered upon a win announcement). Eg. R2188, 2223, etc. So how can a win announcement be factually correct until a win announcement is made? I'm not sure if this is self-affirming (works fine) or is circular (broken). Thoughts? REMAND is looking better all the time... -G
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for most defined win conditions. A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that someone wins the game (R2186). A win announcment need not state that someone wins the game. Most of mine didn't. (Normally, I make two announcements, e.g. This is a Win Announcement: ais523 has 100 points, then a rules-irrelevant and ISIDTID I win the game to clarify.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for most defined win conditions. A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that someone wins the game (R2186). A win announcment need not state that someone wins the game. Most of mine didn't. (Normally, I make two announcements, e.g. This is a Win Announcement: ais523 has 100 points, then a rules-irrelevant and ISIDTID I win the game to clarify.) Ah, in that case it means the and/or clearly stating that one or more persons win the game clause may be broken because you can't truthfully state that until after the win announcement is made. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different (not additional) information (a win announcement that Proposal X has been adopted in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an appeals directive to address this. I generally consider it additive, though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't affect the actual judgement. I don't see the issue here. A win announcement has to either be labelled as one or state that one or more players win the game in order to be a win announcement; and has to contain other required elements in order to have any effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:03 -0400, comex wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different (not additional) information (a win announcement that Proposal X has been adopted in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an appeals directive to address this. I generally consider it additive, though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't affect the actual judgement. I don't see the issue here. A win announcement has to either be labelled as one or state that one or more players win the game in order to be a win announcement; and has to contain other required elements in order to have any effect. G.'s argument is that a win announcement that states that a player wins is necessarily factually incorrect, due to the causality loop, and thus is not actually a win announcement. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for most defined win conditions. A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that someone wins the game (R2186). A win announcment need not state that someone wins the game. Most of mine didn't. (Normally, I make two announcements, e.g. This is a Win Announcement: ais523 has 100 points, then a rules-irrelevant and ISIDTID I win the game to clarify.) Oh but waitaminute, you can't get rid of the and so easily! A win announcement is a factually correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement and/or clearly stating that one or more persons win the game. Err, what? and/or is a usual legal abbreviation for inclusive or (i.e. and or or). The definition of a win announcement always used to be just the first part (the explicit labeling as a win announcement). Because some people tried to win and forgot to say Win Announcement:, the rule was amended as a courtesy to newbies, pretty much, the same way that we allow slightly malformed registrations. The old method, stating that the announcement was a win announcement, continued to work; if the new method was broken, that still has no impact on the old version. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for most defined win conditions. A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that someone wins the game (R2186). A win announcment need not state that someone wins the game. Most of mine didn't. (Normally, I make two announcements, e.g. This is a Win Announcement: ais523 has 100 points, then a rules-irrelevant and ISIDTID I win the game to clarify.) Oh but waitaminute, you can't get rid of the and so easily! A win announcement is a factually correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement and/or clearly stating that one or more persons win the game. Err, what? and/or is a usual legal abbreviation for inclusive or (i.e. and or or). The definition of a win announcement always used to be just the first part (the explicit labeling as a win announcement). Because some people tried to win and forgot to say Win Announcement:, the rule was amended as a courtesy to newbies, pretty much, the same way that we allow slightly malformed registrations. The old method, stating that the announcement was a win announcement, continued to work; if the new method was broken, that still has no impact on the old version. We're getting closer here. I gotcha there, but I think the new version also broke a feature of the old version and your example above. Would you agree that an equivalent reading is: A win announcement is a factually correct statement that is either (a) correctly labeled as a win announcement; or (b) states that one or more people win; or (c) both. I think that's what you're saying and I agree. The problem now is (if we accept that it's circular to say that one or more people won in order to cause those one or more people to win) that: If you choose option (a), you're fine; If you choose option (b), it's broken; BUT. If you choose option (c), and happen to mention I win (or that anyone else wins) as part of the win announcement, it's circular again (and broken because it loses its truthfulness). Thus leading to the paradox that if a self-causing win announcement (labeled or not) actually states that someone wins (in the nature of your irrelevant ISID), it fails. It also means that: Win announcement: Proposal X is adopted. I win. might work because the I win comes later than the announcement and might be considered post-announcement (but of course we aren't delimiting these carefully), but: Win announcement: I win due to Proposal X is broken. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different (not additional) information (a win announcement that Proposal X has been adopted in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an appeals directive to address this. I generally consider it additive, though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't affect the actual judgement. I don't see the issue here. A win announcement has to either be labelled as one or state that one or more players win the game in order to be a win announcement; and has to contain other required elements in order to have any effect. I don't see the issue here either: I thought this was what you were arguing against??? Sigh, well in any case a great big REMAND (or reassign if you're tired of me) is certainly appropriate at this point. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
G. wrote: The problem now is (if we accept that it's circular to say that one or more people won in order to cause those one or more people to win) that: Rule 2215 (Truthiness) suggests (albeit weakly) that such bootstrapping is allowed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
On 07/29/2010 02:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for most defined win conditions. A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that someone wins the game (R2186). But most win conditions are not triggered until a win announcement is made (are triggered upon a win announcement). Eg. R2188, 2223, etc. So how can a win announcement be factually correct until a win announcement is made? I'm not sure if this is self-affirming (works fine) or is circular (broken). Thoughts? REMAND is looking better all the time... -G I think it's self-affirming. If I say that I take an action, it is only a factually correct statement (and therefore legal) because the statement causes the action to be performed. Likewise, if I make a win announcement, it is a factually correct statement because the announcement causes a win. Also, with regards to my original complaint, my reading is that the proposal, which purports to award a win to various players, is not the same as stating that they win. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements
Yally wrote: I support and appeal this case. I'm interpreting this intent/support/appeal as reasonable shorthand for doing so for each of CFJs 2821 and 2822.
