This is really adding to the uncertainty, for reasons I'll explain in a bit.
Please hold off on the Moot. Especially, don't do it with a CONDITIONAL
announcement of intent or action because that compounds the paradox.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> No autocracies please. If CFJ 3672 has been judged, then I intend With 2
> Support to enter its judgement into Moot.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 2:11 PM, D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
