No scam in this one. This was the culmination of the discussion thread about what CFJs were needed after the Round Robin confusion. I suggested one judge because the issues are very intermingled. (Can’t be me because I called the CFJs.)
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's > see what happens. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that > they should probably be assigned to the same judge: > > > > > 1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the > Effective > > > Date under rule 2580” > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > 2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by > announcement > > > under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of > Trigon’s > > > blot” > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > 3. “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule > 2580” > > > > For arguments and evidence, I refer to the email chain and the text of > Rule 2580, provided below. > > > > Rule 2580/2 (Power=1) > > Round Robin > > > > The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the > > Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is > > automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the > > Effective Date. > > > > The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris, > > G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > > > The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona, > > Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > > > The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy, > > Trigon, ATMunn, and twg. > > > > The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the > > Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game > > by announcement on the Effective Date. > > > > The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the > > Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game > > by announcement on the Effective Date. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > D. Margaux > > >
