That works too, and is less confusing. I was trying to avoid an INEFFECTIVE action, but I don’t suppose anyone's going to be claiming a No Faking violation.
-Aris On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:22 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Not *quite*. Trigon, just delivering your judgements is best I think! > > Whether or not you are the judge is the subject of CFJs, even if the > judgement is TRUE. The safest thing is to just deliver them as if > this whole conversation didn't happen, and if it ends up you weren't > the judge, no harm done. If you *are* the judge, it unifies things. > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > As I understand it, for CFJ 3672 it's unclear whether you’re actually the > > judge. If you want to judge it TRUE, you should post your opinion, but > not > > attempt to assign the judgement. If you want to judge it FALSE, you > should > > both post your opinion and assign the judgement. The reason for this is > > that if it’s TRUE, you’re not a judge, so you can’t assign a judgement to > > it at all. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:55 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 > > > > > >
