I think the critical question here is to Trigon. If Trigon's
judgement is TRUE and reasonable enough not to trigger appeal,
then all is fine - D. Margaux happened to deliver it first, but
the arguments came from a neutral source (since D. Margaux, in
eir judgement attempt, explicitly deferred to Trigon's arguments).
If Trigon would find that D. Margaux is not laureled, then it's
fine too: all of D. Margaux attempts failed (e didn't become
Speaker, and e didn't assign the case to emself).
I'm not seeing PARADOX results or anything more complicated than
that - am I missing something there?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>
> > 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
> > October 2018: "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."
>
> I issue a cabinet order of certiorari to assign CFJ 3672 to myself.
>
> I judge CFJ 3672 TRUE for the reasons described in the arguements of Trigon
> and myself copied in the emails below.
>
> I CFJ this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to assign CFJ
> 3672 to emself was EFFECTIVE.”
>
> Arguments regarding that new CFJ:
>
> This CFJ depends on whether I was able to deputise for Prime Minister to
> appoint myself Speaker. Assuming I were laureled, I believe I could do that,
> because (1) no speaker had been appointed since the Left/Right wins that had
> occurred on October 1, (2) the Deputisation Rule is higher powered than
> Office Incompatibilities Rule, and (3) game precedent seems to recognize this
> because earlier this year G. deputised for PM to appoint emself speaker.
>
> So the next question is, am I laureled? I was the last player to announce
> victory by Round Robin, which is also the last time anyone attempted to win
> (except for my later failed attempt to win by apathy). Therefore, I am
> laureled, if and only if I was eligible to win by Round Robin.
>
> Was I eligible to win by Round Robin? That is the question presented in CFJ
> 3672, which I attempted to assign to myself by certiorari. I believe the
> answer is TRUE, and I was eligible, for the reasons described below.
>
> However, if Trigon disagrees with that and attempts to give a FALSE judgement
> to CFJ 3672, and if that judgement is not overturned by moot or
> reconsideration, then the judgement in this new CFJ might be PARADOXICAL!
> Otherwise, I think it is TRUE.
>
> > 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
>
