============================== CFJ 2475 ==============================
Winning the game is a rule-defined action.
Called by root: 27 Apr 2009 18:11:39 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 27 Apr 2009 23:45:23 GMT
Yally recused: 05 May 2009 02:59:28 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 05 May 2009 03:13:12 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble: 07 May 2009 14:45:22 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
Calling it on the statement "Winning the game by announcement is a
rule-defined action" might be more interesting.
Anyway, I submit rule 2223 as gratuitous arguments on that CFJ, because
it certainly gives a situation in which the game can be won by
announcement. I also submit the People's Bank of Agora as a gratuitous
argument on that CFJ, even though it wasn't expecting it and it's rather
out of place.
Rule 2223/1 (Power=2)
Win by Junta
Upon a win announcement that a rule states that one or more
persons CAN cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by
announcement, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of
Cleanup procedure: Those persons SHALL as soon as possible
amend the rule so that it no longer states this, and SHOULD
amend the rules to prevent this condition from being achieved
again in essentially the same way.
Gratuitous Arguments by root:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I call for judgement on the statement "Winning the game is a
>> rule-defined action."
> Calling it on the statement "Winning the game by announcement is a
> rule-defined action" might be more interesting.
That wouldn't make sense. "By announcement" would be a possible
mechanism for performing the action, not an attribute of the action
itself. Consider R478:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> Anyway, I submit rule 2223 as gratuitous arguments on that CFJ, because
> it certainly gives a situation in which the game can be won by
Gratuitous counter-arguments: Rule 2223 defines an announcement that
causes the game to be won, not a "win the game" action that is
performed by announcement.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
The first paragraph of R2186 reads:
Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined
as such by the rules. When one or more persons satisfy at least
one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions,
all such persons win the game. The game CANNOT be won in any
other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
This defines 'to win the game', so the question is whether this
winning can be said to be an "action", as it's something that takes
place Platonically rather than being something the player as an agent
takes an active role in. Clearly it's a verb so as some level it's an
action, but is it an action as the term is used by the rules?
R2152's usage may be instructive here:
1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
R2186 uses "CANNOT"; we can infer that it must be describing an action
to have meaning. I judge TRUE.