On 7/28/24 19:53, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > ais523 wrote: > >> On Sun, 2024-07-28 at 16:25 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Gratuitous: >>> >>> * Jaff has been Speaker since April. >>> >>> * On or about June 4, ais523 won (Paradox, Zen, High Score). >>> * On or about June 22, Janet won (Zen). >>> * On or about June 27, snail won (Bangs). >>> * On or about July 18, Mischief won (Bangs). >>> >>> * On or about July 23, 4st attempted to deputise to appoint snail >>> (ineffective, the duty is to appoint a Laureled player, and snail >>> was no longer Laureled), then attempted to appoint Mischief >>> (ineffective because the previous attempt failed to make 4st PM). >>> >>> * In response to 4st's attempts, Janet attempted to deputise to >>> appoint Mischief. PM is not vacant, so R2160(7) applies: >>> >>> a) wasn't true (intent wasn't announced earlier). >>> >>> c) wasn't true (attempted deputisation wasn't temporary). >>> >>> b) may have been true. If each win created a separate "CAN once" >>> ability and corresponding duty, then exactly one of those >>> duties (the one starting on or about June 27) was within the >>> 14-to-28 day window. If the first win created a single ability >>> and duty that persisted thereafter (with the later wins merely >>> moving its target), then it was outside that window. >>> >>> I don't have a strong opinion which interpretation should win. I'm not >>> recording the events in the ADoP database at this time, but that's just >>> because from a technical standpoint it's easier to add them later if the >>> CFJ is judged TRUE, rather than revert them if it's judged FALSE. >> Gratuitous: I won on July 19 (by exploiting a bug in the cleanup >> procedure for Win by Paradox), which is probably relevant. > Oh yes, I forgot to catch up on ALT before writing the above. So this > should be a trivial FALSE, as Janet also attempted to appoint a player > no longer Laureled. >
Aww. Sorry. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
