============================== CFJ 1528 ==============================
Proposal 4639 was a Takeover Proposal when its voting period ended.
Called by G.: 14 Feb 2005 05:10:53 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr: 20 Feb 2005 00:26:10 GMT
Judged FALSE by OscarMeyr: 26 Feb 2005 02:00:40 GMT
Goethe submitted a Proposal 'Is this a Takeover', which claimed to
be a Takeover Proposal and stated "A set of consisting of every
player holding a Coalition Card is specified." However, the members
of this set changed while the Proposal progressed. What happened to
the Proposal overall?
The following sequence of events occurred (all times GMT):
Wed, 2 Feb 12:44:04 At the time of submission, there were 11 Active
Noisy Players, so the number of Corporate Raiders
[R2078] must be between 3.67 and 5.5 for the
Proposal to be a Takeover Proposal.
At the time of submission, 5 Players held a
Coalition card: Eris, Goethe, Maud, OscarMeyr,
Sun, 6 Feb 22:07:18 'Is this a takeover' distributed as Proposal 4639.
Sun, 6 Feb 21:51:02 Goethe discards Coalition which Murphy collects.
Sun, 6 Feb 22:46:01 OscarMeyr plays Coalition Card to the deck.
Sun, 13 Feb 17:22:42 Murphy discards Coalition Card.
Sun, 13 Feb 22:07:18 The Voting Period for 'Is this a takeover' ends.
At this time, 3 Players hold a Coalition Card:
Eris, Maud, and root.
By R2078, what happened? The caller offers some possibilities:
1. The Proposal was never a Takeover Proposal.
2. The set of Corporate Raiders was set at the time of Proposal
submission and did not change (Eris, Goethe, Maud, OscarMeyr,
3. The Corporate Raiders when the voting period ended were
the holders of a Coalition Card at that particular time:
Eris, Maud, and root.
4. As #3, but since this puts the number of Raiders below 3.67,
the Proposal was no longer a Takeover Proposal when its voting
The caller suggests that #4 best fits the 'Spirit of the Game' as it
allows the most interesting game play. Also, #3 or #4 may be the "most
natural" interpretation, as the discussion forum suggests that several
players automatically assumed that changing cards changed the set of
Raiders. Otherwise the caller offers no strong legal arguments to support
Goethe's to Murphy:
Rule 2078/0 (Power=2)
Initiative is a stuck player switch, tracked by the Assessor,
with values Gote and Sente.
A Takeover Proposal is a proposal meeting these requirements:
(a) It is labelled as a Takeover Proposal.
(b) No Takeover Proposal has been submitted earlier in the
(c) It specifies a set of players (hereafter the Corporate
Raiders) that is no larger than P/2 or smaller than P/3,
where P is the number of active noisy players at the time
Rules to the Contrary nonwithstanding, a Takeover Proposal is
both Democratic and Sane.
At the beginning of a Takeover Proposal's voting period, all
players have their initiative flipped to Gote. At the end of a
Takeover Proposal's voting period, all players have their
initiative flipped as follows:
(a) Adopted: All Corporate Raiders gain Sente.
(b) Rejected: All other players gain Sente.
(c) Failed quorum: No one gains Sente.
Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:
I find that the set of possibilities put forth by the Caller to be
sufficiently complete. I shall address them in order.
1. Prop. 4639 initially met the requirements for a Takeover Proposal:
It was clearly labelled as such; it was the first Takeover Proposal
submitted in February; and the Corporate Raiders indirectly specified in
the Proposal was within the minimum and maximum set forth in R2078.
2. I am not aware of any Rule or precedent that requires that a
Proposal with a variable component be fixed at the time of its
proposing, or any other particular time. Accordingly, I rule that the
set of Corporate Raiders was subject to change during the Proposal's
3. As noted, the set of Corporate Raiders at the end of the voting
period was Eris, Maud, and root -- the Players who held Coalition Cards
at that time.
4. But this was less than the minimum specified in R2078, as noted by
Therefore, I find that Prop. 4639 was no longer a legitimate Takeover
Proposal at the end of its voting period, and I hand down a ruling of
FALSE on CFJ 1528.