============================== CFJ 2887 ==============================
I won the game today.
Called by ais523: 11 Oct 2010 20:31:23 GMT
Assigned to omd: 17 Oct 2010 21:24:25 GMT
omd recused: 31 Oct 2010 17:37:03 GMT
Assigned to G.: 07 Nov 2010 14:56:00 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 09 Nov 2010 00:21:52 GMT
By virtue of having the office of Pariah, a player who has
had no Rests for a week, and did not become Pariah in that time, CAN win
the game by announcement (via a specific Win Announcement: rule 2312),
and likewise MAY do so. Thus, the Pariah CAN and MAY win the game by
announcement, subject to having been clean for a while. I have had no
Rests for a week, and did not become Pariah in that time; thus, via the
Grand Vizier position, I can do whatever the Pariah (or any other
officer) could do by announcement With Notice (rule 2255); in this case,
win the game. (And I gave notice at least 4 days ago...)
[CotC: immediately before initiating this case]
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 20:20 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 15:15 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > For each elected office not held by Murphy, I resign that office.
> This requires With Notice, if it even works at all.
> I intend, with Notice, to win the game.
I pay a fee to move on the list to Grand Vizier (thus moving coppro out
of that position).
With Notice, I win the game.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The judge should explicitly consider whether intending "to win the game"
without detailing what is in fact a rather unusual and non-self-explanatory
method of doing so is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to qualify
as as a dependent action intent. This has ramifications for many
future dependent actions.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
Other than via induction (which would obviously be insane),
there is only one mechanism in the rules that allows a player to win the
game with notice, so it should have been unambiguous what I was trying.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
In this case, winning the game is not an action, but the
result of an action (making a Win Announcement about the Pariah) which
anyone can do. By ais523's argument, I could intend, without
objection, to win the game, and (if I didn't get any objections) flip
everyone's activity to Inactive, causing me to win by solitude.
And then steal everyone's offices and crown myself.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
>From Rule 2186/9:
When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition
and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win
Contrary to omd's gratuitous arguments, I find that "satisfying a win
condition of cleanliness" is in fact an action that the Pariah CAN take
by virtue of being the Pariah. So the Grand Vizier CAN "satisfy the win
condition of cleanliness" With Notice.
However, contrary to caller ais523's arguments, "winning the game", as
governed by R2186/9 is not a direct action but the platonic result of
satisfying said winning conditions.
As such, the action that had to be announced in intent for the intent to
satisfy specificity requirements would have been "I intend to satisfy
the win condition of Cleanliness" or possibly "I intend to have 0 rests
for an entire week" rather than simply "I win the game", which is the
follow-on action (this of course give others a chance to treat the Grand
Vizier as the Pariah to try to block the win). Saying merely "I intend
to satisfy an unspecified winning condition" is like saying "I intend,
without objection, to amend an unspecified rule in an unspecified way"
which is not at all clear.