I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time, with the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge. Probably most efficient that way. My suggested CFJs are:
> “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective Date > under rule 2580" and > “D. Margaux and G. won on the Effective Date by announcement under rule 2580" (second one omits V.J. Rada and PSS because they are impure and so trivially could not win) > On Oct 11, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps we could call a CFJ about the set vs. individual interpretations and > then, if set is chosen, we could call another one about clusivity. > > A potential wording for the first would be "All players could have won by > announcement under rule 2580" and one for the second could be "VJ Rada, D > Margaux, PSS, and G. could have won by announcement under rule 2580"? I don't > know. I only really started paying attention to the CFJ system once I started > making new annotations. > > And, for the record, I thought the same as you with regard to interpretations. > >> On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote: >> 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 > > -- > Trigon
