Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns are broken. How should I judge these?
-Aris On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister. > > I CFJ: twg is the Speaker. > > Arguements: > > 1) I won by cheating a while back (sorry!), and I think that triggered > ATMunn’s obligation to reappoint me as a new speaker (even though I was > already speaker). > > 2) Subsequently, Gaelan won by apathy, and that victory was upheld as > valid in a CFJ. (But maybe intents are broken? So is it really clear that e > actually did win by apathy?) > > 3) Then I declared a intent to deputise for PM “to appoint a new speaker” > (or similarly generic language), which G. challenged as perhaps not > specific enough to be a proper intent. > > 4) Then twg and I declared victory by apathy (probably?—but again, that > doesn’t work if intents are broken; and if intents _are_ broken, then how > did Gaelan win?). > > 5) I then declared an intent to deputise for PM to appoint twg > specifically to be speaker. > > and then 6) I executed those intents by deputising as PM to appoint twg to > be speaker (if laureled); otherwise Gaelan (if laureled); otherwise D. > Margaux. > > So, the questions are—did twg and I win by apathy (or are intents broken)? > If we did win, then both CFJs are TRUE (I think). > > If we didn’t win by apathy, the other question is whether my “general” > intent was enough to deputise for PM? If so, then I am PM but twg isn’t > Speaker. And in that case, is Gaelan the Speaker or am I?
