Short summary: I tried to engineer a possible PARADOX by attempting to yank the CFJ from you by certiorari, which would be EFFECTIVE only if the CFJ is TRUE.
G. pointed out that no matter what you do or would have decided on that CFJ, there’s actually no PARADOX after all. Womp womp. So the short answer is, I think you can just try to issue whatever judgements on those CFJs that you would have issued anyway, and then another CFJ assigned to G. will decide what comes of that. I tried to give an impartial and not misleading summary, but you may want to wait for a disinterested party to confirm that they don’t disagree. > On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:55 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay, this is very confusing. Can someone give me a short description of what > happened and what I need to do now? Should I just publish the judgement for > 3671-3 that I was already planning on publishing? > >> On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 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 >>> > > -- > Trigon
