Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: Per CFJ 2450, I award 96+96i points to comex. Disclaimer: This message is an attempt to construct a paradox. Nothing here is definitely false; but it may be confusing. The following sentence is a Win Announcement, and this sentence serves to clearly label it as one. This sentence is false, and comex has a score x+yi such that xy = 2500. I call for judgement on the statement The Herald CAN award comex a second instance of Champion. Trivially FALSE. comex has a rest, which is a Losing Condition. E burned it off, I thought? But I don't think you would get a paradox out of this anyway; it would simply not be a Win Announcement, due to not being true. Claiming it isn't true leads to a contradiction, if you accept that comex does indeed have such an abnormally high score. -- ais532
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Trivially FALSE. comex has a rest, which is a Losing Condition. E burned it off, I thought? E had two; I think e has only burned one off so far. But I don't think you would get a paradox out of this anyway; it would simply not be a Win Announcement, due to not being true. Claiming it isn't true leads to a contradiction, if you accept that comex does indeed have such an abnormally high score. The liar's paradox is neither true nor false. A win announcement must be correct which cannot be the case if it is not true. This is essentially the same argument I used in judging CFJ 2463. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know about the terms here, maybe some are defined, but if the contestmaster can perform an action, I'd say being the contestmaster is a condition that has to be met in order to perform the action. And if it's a part of the action, then you couldn't make such an announcement because it would be an announcement made by the contestmaster that one has completed duties, so it seems it fails either way. Or am I missing something? My interpretation is (Once ASAP after the end of the month), (the contestmaster may announce) (that e performed duties). In order, the condition, the action, and the announcement. In particular, I made the announcement without performing the action. Of course, I'm biased, but I don't think it's worded so that 'being the contestmaster' is a condition-- if you allow conditions not worded as such, you could take it even further by rewriting the sentence as an announcement MAY be performed if it's by the contestmaster, it's ASAP after the end of the month, and it says that e completed duties. Therefore other announcements MAY NOT be made.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Gratuitous: It seems there are two interpretations: One is that such an announcement means only the announcement stating that duties have been performed, and in that case everything else about it is conditions that weren't met, so it is illegal due to 2125. The other one is that the action is the contestmaster making an announcement in its entirety, in which case it fails because comex wasn't contestmaster. It seems to me that if we define conditions as not being everything about the sentence, but rather only the ASAP at the end of the month (which I understand that we maybe want to), then this should also apply to the such an announcement clause. Third interpretation: such an announcement is just a hypothetical announcement stating X (not referring to any particular action yet); the action is the contestmaster making such an announcement, with the time limit as condition.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: No, wait, I didn't read what comex said right there. I'm arguing the same as Murphy, and comex's objection applies to that too. However, I think that such an announcement can also be seen as the kind of announcement we spent the entire last paragraph to describe, which is one made once, ASAP at the end of the month, by the contestmaster. Yes, but As soon as possible after the end of a month, for each contest, the player (if any) who was its contestmaster for at least 16 days during that month MAY once announce that e performed duties related to that contest in a timely manner during that month, subject to other rules regarding truthfulness. As soon as possible after a player makes such an announcement, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award, ... Yes, but under this interpretation, why a player makes such an announcement rather than such an announcement is made or just such an announcement etc?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:36 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Murphy seems to be arguing that by announcement the rule really means the action described in the previous paragraph, which is a special case of an announcement, but this goes against the wording of the rule. No, e's arguing that by such an announcement, the rule means that. It actually seems rather intuitive that such an announcement would refer to a subset of announcements. It explicitly states a player makes such an announcement, not that player makes such an announcement or such an announcement is made, which would be more natural wordings in context. Certainly not. That player makes such an announcement would make no sense, as the previous paragraph refers to the contestmaster of each contest, not a single contestmaster. And I fail to see why such an announcement is made should be interpreted any differently, other than not implicitly requiring the contestmaster to be a player (which of course is already required by other rules). -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: No, e's arguing that by such an announcement, the rule means that. It actually seems rather intuitive that such an announcement would refer to a subset of announcements It refers to the subset of announcements in which the announcer claims that e performed duties related to a contest in a timely manner during a month. It explicitly states a player makes such an announcement, not that player makes such an announcement or such an announcement is made, which would be more natural wordings in context. Certainly not. That player makes such an announcement would make no sense, as the previous paragraph refers to the contestmaster of each contest, not a single contestmaster. And I fail to see why such an announcement is made should be interpreted any differently, other than not implicitly requiring the contestmaster to be a player (which of course is already required by other rules). The for each contest bit already implicitly extends to the next paragraph because there's text afterwards about that contest, so that player would make perfect sense. While As soon as possible after that player makes such an announcement, is a bit awkward, As soon as possible after such an announcement, is not awkward but more consistent with the wording of other rules. The unnecessary a player strongly suggests that any player can make the announcement, just as we do not interpret a player CAN deregister by announcement to refer to a single, unspecified player.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: It refers to the subset of announcements in which the announcer claims that e performed duties related to a contest in a timely manner during a month. Respectfully disagree. Fair enough. You wrote the text in question, but the fact that I genuinely misinterpreted the intended meaning (I thought it was intended to pragmatize the question of whether someone was actually a contestmaster) demonstrates there is at least some ambiguity. And such an announcement strongly suggests an announcement made as described in the previous paragraph, which would make the rule inconsistent. If it instead read As soon as possible after a contestmaster makes such an announcement, would you also infer that to somehow imply that contestmasters could simply make effective announcements willy-nilly, disregarding the previous paragraph entirely? I'm simply arguing that the announcement itself is different from the action of making the announcement, interpreting it akin to: The Anarchist MAY, as soon as possible after Bastille Day, publish a proposal containing the repeal of one or more rules. As soon as possible after a player publishes such a proposal, the Herald shall record that Bastille Day was celebrated. Clearly in this case the second paragraph applies even if someone else publishes a repeal proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Fair enough. You wrote the text in question, but the fact that I genuinely misinterpreted the intended meaning (I thought it was intended to pragmatize the question of whether someone was actually a contestmaster) demonstrates there is at least some ambiguity. It was in fact intended to pragmatize the question of whether a contestmaster performed eir contest-related duties in a timely manner. I'm simply arguing that the announcement itself is different from the action of making the announcement, interpreting it akin to: The Anarchist MAY, as soon as possible after Bastille Day, publish a proposal containing the repeal of one or more rules. As soon as possible after a player publishes such a proposal, the Herald shall record that Bastille Day was celebrated. Clearly in this case the second paragraph applies even if someone else publishes a repeal proposal. If the second paragraph read any player rather than a player, I would agree on this. As it stands, it's ambiguous. I think the main difference between this example and R2234 is that here the preceding paragraph refers to a specific individual, The Anarchist rather than a variably sized subset of players, so the use of a player in the succeeding paragraph feels especially unnatural. I take your point, though. FWIW, the reason I used a player instead of a contestmaster in the proposal was that I didn't like referring to a contestmaster without reference to a particular contest (and the contestmaster of a contest just seemed excessively wordy), and I didn't see any harm in leaving the announcer relatively unconstrained since it was already constrained by the first paragraph. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6191 - 6195
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW, the reason I used a player instead of a contestmaster in the proposal was that I didn't like referring to a contestmaster without reference to a particular contest (and the contestmaster of a contest just seemed excessively wordy), and I didn't see any harm in leaving the announcer relatively unconstrained since it was already constrained by the first paragraph. Oh, and I didn't like after such an announcement is made at the time, since that puts it in the passive voice. Although in retrospect, that might have been the best option. -root
