On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > the
> > announcement would still cause "all those persons" specified in the
> > proposal (not just those listed in the win announcement) to win.
>
> I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why,
> out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be
> present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in
> the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those
> persons". For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text:
>
> Upon an announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or
> more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
> Winning Condition of Legislation.
>
> This is the same as R2188, but with "a win announcement" changed to
> "an announcement". Clearly, under this version, there is the
> potential for anyone to win the game by falsely claiming a proposal
> awarding em a win has been adopted-- there is no actual proposal to
> provide a set of "all those persons", but the text is only concerned
> with announcement.
>
> Why does adding the requirement that the announcement is correct
> change the referent?
Because it specifically maps the announcement to match the truthiness
of what the Proposal purports, so there are not two disjoint sets.
I don't think there are two competing sets of persons at all. Any
person announced specifically in a win announcement must be a subset
of those referred to in the proposal (I think I say as much in the
judgement).
More gratuity:
The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
(not additional) information ("a win announcement that Proposal X has
been adopted" in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an
appeals directive to address this. I generally consider it additive,
though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't
affect the actual judgement.
-G.
