I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that they
should probably be assigned to the same judge:
> 1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective
> Date under rule 2580”
>
> and
>
> 2. “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”
>
> and
>
> 3. “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule 2580”
For arguments and evidence, I refer to the email chain and the text of Rule
2580, provided below.
Rule 2580/2 (Power=1)
Round Robin
The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is
automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the
Effective Date.
The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris,
G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona,
Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy,
Trigon, ATMunn, and twg.
The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the
Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game
by announcement on the Effective Date.
The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the
Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game
by announcement on the Effective Date.
Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> D. Margaux
