The second one could use an "only". On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 08:01 D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 >
