Index ← 3135 CFJ 3136 3137 → text
==============================  CFJ 3136  ==============================

    If and when the Victory Announcement in the same message that
    created this CFJ self-ratifies, if the rules regarding victory have
    not changed since, then ais523 will Win the Game.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Pavitra
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       12 Dec 2011 07:26:43 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    14 Dec 2011 00:52:52 GMT
Judged FALSE by Pavitra:                15 Dec 2011 03:20:03 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

First off, the Victory Announcement is unambiguously correct;
CFJ 1980 is a turtle (the definition of "turtle" is the same as the
definition of "tortoise" that was involved in the last win involving
that CFJ), and has been so for more than a week (regardless of whether
you consider it to have been a turtle before turtles were defined ora
not; that's an interesting question, but one that doesn't AFAICT affect
this case). Multiple Victory Announcements describing the same victory
condition are all correct, according to rule 2343; the only potential
reason why this might not lead to a win is that you don't gain a win if
the person named has already won via the same events.

Now, it's true that I've already got a win indirectly from CFJ 1980, but
rule 2358, which currently defines the victory condition in question,
doesn't use the same definition as the current rule. The win by paradox
rule at the time of the original rule was (the since-repealed) rule
2110/5, which grants a win to the initiator of a tortoise upon a win
announcement that the tortoise has been a tortoise for no greater than
four and no less than two weeks. In other words, the win was granted in
response to making a certain correct statement, and the only reason the
CFJ was relevant was that the statement would only be correct if the CFJ
were judged UNDECIDABLE. Meanwhile, the current rule requires the CFJ to
have been a turtle for only one week (a difference in the conditions
already), and the Victory Condition itself is satisfied platonically,
not pragmatically (although wins are pragmatic in the current ruleset,
at least that Victory Condition is platonic). Thus, the tortoise-based
win and turtle-based win, while similar, are not based on the same
events (a one-week turtle is not the same event as a statement about a
two-week tortoise, and even if both definitions existed at the same
time, it would be possible to achieve the first but not the second).

In other words, I recommend judging this CFJ TRUE.


Caller's Evidence:

The next sentence of this message is a Victory Announcement, and this
sentence serves to explicitly label it as a Victory Announcement.

ais523 has satisfied the Victory Condition of Paradox (for CFJ 1980).

the fact that CFJ 1980 was
initiated by ais523 and has had a judgement of UNDECIDABLE for several
years now

the old ruleset archived at


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

"won via the same events" is an inherently vague statement
and is clearly intended to be interpreted generally; only a moron in a
hurry would think you have not won via the same events.


Judge Pavitra's Arguments:

The crux of this case is the phrase "via the same events". The chain of
events leading to the tortoise victory has some but not all of its
events in common with the chain of events leading to the claimed turtle

On one hand, it is not the case that the sequence of events via which
the tortoise victory occurred is equal to the sequence of events via
which the turtle victory would occur.

On the other hand, there exists at least one event via which the
tortoise victory occurred and via which the turtle victory would occur.

The text of the rules and ordinary-language usage are, as far as I can
tell, both silent on this distinction. This leaves common sense and the
best interests of the game.

The obvious answer is to say that common sense should treat the rules as
meaning what they seem to mean, and that the best interests of the game
should treat the rules as meaning what they are intended to mean.
However, I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the game
to categorically block scams; on the gripping hand, it is also against
the best interests of the game to categorically treat any attempted scam
as successful.

As tempting as it is to judge on the basis of whether I think the scam
is interesting or impressive, that is simply not the way Agora is
played, or in other words it runs contrary to game custom. Scams are
judged on purely formal terms, and therefore this question calls for a
categorical answer.

So, in the general case where the rules are silent and ordinary usage is
ambiguous, how do we interpret?

As far as I can tell, we usually interpret in the way that makes the
rules not-broken. We treat the rules as meaning what they seem to mean
and what they are intended to mean. This does not block scams
categorically, because this standard only applies in a relatively narrow
range of cases. There are a great many situations where the text of the
rules clearly allows some form of deliciously horrible scammy brokenness
or other. But when all else fails, choose the non-perverse reading.