Re: DIS: Fwd: Re: BUS: Kwang

2019-07-02 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 03:33, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of
> ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice
> doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this
> case, either order would lead to D. Margaux earning a total of 10
> coins. Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule where the judge's first
> salary of the week also gave some coins to the submitter of the
> relevant case.)

Thanks. I'll assume it worked, then, though I'm curious about the reasoning.

- Falsifian


DIS: Fwd: Re: BUS: Kwang

2019-07-02 Thread Edward Murphy

I didn't get back a copy of this message in a timely fashion, so I
suspect the munging is indeed not working yet.


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: BUS: Kwang
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:20:03 -0700
From: Edward Murphy 
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org

Falsifian wrote:


On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 06:37, D. Margaux  wrote:

I earn 10 coins total (5 for each of my two most recent CFJs)


I think this didn't work, since the order of these two actions is
ambiguous. R478 requires actions by announcement to be unambigious,
and also says the actions take place in the order they appear in the
message. Let me know if you think I'm mistaken; for now I'll assume as
Treasuror that it didn't work.


There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of
ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice
doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this
case, either order would lead to D. Margaux earning a total of 10
coins. Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule where the judge's first
salary of the week also gave some coins to the submitter of the
relevant case.)