Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2770a
================= Appeal 2770a (Interest Index = 0) ================== Panelist: G. Decision: Panelist: ais523 Decision: Panelist: woggle Decision: ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 07 Mar 2010 18:39:38 GMT Assigned to G. (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to ais523 (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to woggle (panelist): (as of this message) ======================================================================== Appellant comex's Arguments: I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. Unlike the proof of a theorem, winning the game is supposed to be an instantaneous, not continuous, event, and e.g. "When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win the game." implies that, in the case of ambiguity, we should prefer the interpretation where satisfying a Winning Condition only happens for an instant. ======================================================================== Appellant Murphy's Arguments: coppro cited a past precedent in a-d, probably CFJ 2489. The specific pattern addressed in that judgement is "Upon X, Y satisfies Z" The (similar but not identical) pattern used by Rule 2199 is "Y CAN do X to satisfy Z" Cleanup procedures to the effect of "Y does not satisfy Z for the same X" are meaningful under either interpretation, e.g. to prevent the same player(s) from re-satisfying Win by Junta by announcement about the same proposal. This could also be implemented as "Upon an X that has not already caused Y to satisfy Z...", but separating it into the cleanup procedure is more convenient (especially since cleanup procedures may also do other things, e.g. Clout used to reset castes, High Score used to reset scores). ======================================================================== Appellant coppro's Arguments: I support and do so because the judgment fails to address CFJ 2489, which it appears to contradict. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: Yally wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:39, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> I support and do so because the judgment fails to address CFJ 2489, which it >> appears to contradict. > > I was not aware of this CFJ when I issued my decision. Based on the above, I recommend REMAND. ======================================================================== Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2770 =================== CFJ 2770 (Interest Index = 1) ==================== Murphy satisfies the Winning Condition of Renaissance. ======================================================================== Caller: Murphy Judge: Yally Judgement: TRUE Appeal: 2770a Decision: (pending) ======================================================================== History: Called by Murphy: 27 Feb 2010 16:02:08 GMT Assigned to Yally: 27 Feb 2010 17:09:11 GMT Judged TRUE by Yally: 07 Mar 2010 17:12:19 GMT Appealed by comex: 07 Mar 2010 17:22:14 GMT Appealed by Murphy: 07 Mar 2010 18:25:28 GMT Appealed by coppro: 07 Mar 2010 18:39:38 GMT Appeal 2770a: 07 Mar 2010 18:39:38 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: I won by Renaissance last November, but no rule explicitly stated that I ceased to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance (contrast the cleanup procedures for Paradox, Clout, and Legislation). For Winning Conditions (generally defined as "when X occurs", while Losing Conditions are generally defined as "while X is true"), I can think of three possible interpretations: 1) Winning Conditions are only satisfied for an instant. If you satisfy any Losing Conditions during that same instant, tough cookies, you have to get rid of them and then re-satisfy a Winning Condition. 2) Winning Conditions are satisfied until you win with them, at which point they're implicitly turned off (and the cleanup procedure should, if needed, prevent them from being turned on again for the same reason as before). 3) Winning Conditions are satisfied until explicitly turned off. Of these, #1 is messy (if you destroy Ribbons to satisfy Renaissance, then later in the same message destroy Rests to cease satisfying having-Rests, does it work?); both #2 and #3 are more plausible, but I favor #3 because the cleanup procedures intuitively suggest as much. ======================================================================== Judge Yally's Arguments: Rule 2186: When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win the game. ... Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs. Rule 2199: If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. The issue with this case comes with the word "satisfy." dictionary.com defines the word satisfy as "to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of." This implies that once these needs are satisfied, they continue to be satisfied until some outside effect makes them no longer satisfied. And this would seem appropriate. Consider satisfying the conditions for a mathematical proof. When Andrew Wiles satisfied the conditions for a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, it was not for an instant that the idea was proven and then once again it was unknown if A^n + B^n = C^n for a given integer n >= 2. Instead, the conditions for the theorem were continually satisfied. Too, by destroying one Ribbon of each color in eir posession, Murphy satisfied the Winning Condition of Renaissance perpetually until some outside even caused him to no longer satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. The second quote from Rule 2186 seems to support this belief, as it suggest the need for a cleanup procedure to prevent multiple wins. It would seem the intent of this rule is that the cleanup procedure stop the perpetual Winning Condition. However, this Win by Renaissance is appropriately flawed. TRUE. ========================================================================
