On Sat, 22 Feb 2014, woggle wrote: > On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote: > [snip] > > It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex > > Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end > > of > > the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to be shown that > > ending > > Agora falls under "causing Agora to become ossified". > > > > Agora's not ossified, it's just done. Now, G. objects that it depends on > > what > > the meaning of the word "is" is... A finished game still "exists", and is > > therefore ossified, therefore ending is prevented by R1698. I don't see in > > what sense this could be true. > > The R1698 definition of "Agora is ossified" does not become undefined if Agora > does not exist.  The definition only asks whether it would be possible to > pass proposals or make arbitrary gamestate changes. These questions have clear > answers if Agora were to "cease to exist".
Indeed, this is why I was asking Fool to define what e meant by "ceases to exist." Even IF the game ended, my contention is that we could still talk meaningfully about the state of the game at that moment of ending. If someone said "what were the scores when the game ended?" I wouldn't say "the scores ceased to exist, that's a meaningless question", I'd say "these were the final scores". That's true of any game, otherwise you couldn't have tournaments, playoffs, etc. If one of those "at the end of the game" facts is "Agora is Ossified", then then we can still ask why R1698 didn't prevent that from happening, because it should have! I recognize that there's a fencepost issue here in terms of whether we're talking about the moment before, the moment after, or the exact moment at which the game ended. I think there's some precedents on fencepost issues (that the rules have always been pretty silent on, so the revamp didn't change anything) but I don't really remember what the precedents are. Anyway, this point doesn't need resolution under the current judgement. -G.