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: REMAND
Judge: Yally
Judgement:
========================================================================
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
REMANDED on Appeal: 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT
Remanded to Yally: 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 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.
========================================================================
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2770a
================= Appeal 2770a (Interest Index = 0) ==================
Panelist: G.
Decision: REMAND
Panelist: ais523
Decision: REMAND
Panelist: woggle
Decision: REMAND
========================================================================
History:
Appeal initiated: 07 Mar 2010 18:39:38 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist): 07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
G. moves to REMAND: 10 Mar 2010 18:26:48 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND: 10 Mar 2010 18:32:42 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND: 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT
Final decision (REMAND): 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
Judge Yally's interpretation is thoughtful and reasonable. It doesn't
contradict current text, but rather past precedents of which e was
unaware. E should specifically consider whether eir current reasoning
is sufficient to overturn precedent. REMAND.
========================================================================
Panelist ais523's Arguments:
I also opine REMAND on this; if a judge doesn't have all the information
when they make a judgement, the best option is to allow them to
reconsider with all the information available, unless the judge doesn't
want to take the case.
========================================================================
