I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I personally had in mind the set/inclusive interpretation.
The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s winning chances depend in part upon which slates happen to have impure players. That seems undesirable to me, because the players were randomly assigned, and the fun of the proposal isn’t really advanced by treating players differently based on the happenstance of where impure players are assigned. In some cases (such as the one here), applying the set/exclusive interpretation might run afoul of the No Cretans rule. In particular, here, the Rule says (i) A CAN win unless B and (ii) B CAN win unless C. Under a set/exclusive interpretation, I think (i) and (ii) are in conflict with respect to whether the (A,B) players can win. As a result, because (ii) comes after (i), I think applying No Cretans means that (A, B) should win then too. What do people think is the clearest way to CFJ this? A very simple CFJ like, “At least one player won by Round Robin,” might give a judge the opportunity to opine more broadly about who actually won. > On Oct 9, 2018, at 9:29 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I understand more theories are the last thing we probably need right now but > oh well. > > Let me make a chart for reference. > > A and B B and C C and A > --------- --------- --------- > VJ Rada L. Cuddles > Margaux Corona Aris > PSS Trigon Murphy > G. twg ATMunn > > In the rule "Round Robin", it is stated that Slate A players cannot win if > Slate B players can. > > One interpretation (the "set" interpretation) of this is that the set of > Slate A players cannot win if there is a mechanism for Slate B players to. In > this case, all Slate A players can announce that they win, but it might not > work if you're criminal. > > Another interpretation (the "individual" interpretation) of this is that each > the set of Slate A players cannot win if all the Slate B players can. > > That's one thing we need to figure out. The other is how the overlap works. > > One interpretation of this argument (the "exclusive" interpretation) is that > if the set of Slate N players, where N is a valid slate, cannot win, and a > person's set of slates includes N, e may not win since one of eir slates > cannot win. The other interpretation (the "inclusive" interpretation) would > be that as long as one of a player's slates can win, e can win. > > Okay, so now we have two factors. The next step is clearly to create a table. > The set of pairs in each square is who can win. > > set individual > ------------- ------------------- > exclusive (B,C) (A,B),(B,C),(C,A) > inclusive (A,B),(B,C) (A,B),(B,C),(C,A) > > This is as clearly as I can think to describe the situation. > >> On 10/9/2018 6:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Ok, Here's my catalog of events. Want to see if we can condense cases >> before figuring out what raft of CFJs are needed. >> Corona, Trigon, VJ Rada start out with Blots, therefore CANNOT win. >> Announcements made (including Slates of announcers): >> Trigon (B, C): I cause the Slate B players to win, if possible. >> - Dunno if a person can announce on behalf of others. >> - Some of Slate B have Blots, dunno if this makes the non-blotted >> win or fails as a whole unit. >> twg (B, C): I win the game. >> CuddleBeam (A, C): I win the game too. >> D. Margaux (A, B): I win the game too. >> Trigon (B, C): I win the game. >> Trigon (B, C): I expunge one blot from myself and win the game. >> G. (A, B) : I win the game. >> ATMunn (A, C): I win the game. >> D. Margaux (A,B): 498 iterations of "I win the game by Round Robin." / >> "I win per Round Robin." except 1 in the middle was >> a Different Thing. >> D. Margaux (A,B): I win by Round Robin. >> For people in (A,B), does the fact that they cannot (due to >> Slate A) >> stop them from winning (as part of Slate B)? Probably not, due to >> Rule 2240 (No Cretans Need Apply) - the "Slate B wins" is later. >> For people in (A, C), does the fact that not everyone in B can win >> (due to blots) means that being in A means you can win? >> If so, for someone in B, that means someone in (A, C) can win, which >> means someone in (C) can win, does this block people in (B) from >> winning? >> Should the Herald just Give Up and Cry? >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> https://www.avg.com > > -- > Trigon
