Index ← 3279 CFJ 3280 3281 → text
==============================  CFJ 3280  ==============================

    In this message, I caused (possibly indirectly) the repeal of rule
    2380 and, at the time, it included the word 'omd'. [My scam failed,
    and omd's succeeded]

========================================================================

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  FKA441344
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by scshunt:                      01 Oct 2012 00:22:31 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  13 Oct 2012 00:10:44 GMT
Judged FALSE by FKA441344:              13 Oct 2012 10:36:43 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Sean Hunt 
wrote:
> I apologize for making things more confusing, but I intend, with
> notice, to cause a rule to repeal Presidential Power.
>
> -scshunt

Hrm, let's be more convincing. If possible:

I cause Rule 2384 to set the power of all proposals to 0. I cause Rule
2384 to repeal Rule 2382, the rule enacted most recently by proposal
5982, and the rule most recently enacted by proposal 6130. If this
fails, I intend, with notice, to repeal those rules. Arguments: The
original intents provided have subjected these rule changes to public
scrutiny. Ambiguity doesn't apply because the intent was clear, and
the rule change itself is rather unambiguous.

> I do so, then I intend, with notice, to cause the rule "King of the
> Hill" to repeal the rule "Win by Junta", to amend rule 1950 by
> appending ", but once an Agoran decision has been initiated, if it has
> an adoption index, it CANNOT have it removed, and if it does not, it
> CANNOT have one added." to the sentence "Adoption index and Chamber
> are secured with a power threshold of 2", and to repeal itself.

If possible, I do all these things except the repeal of Rule 2384.

If possible, I cause Rule 2384 to repeal Rule 2326 (Slave Golems) and
Rule 2326 (The President), and amend Rule 103 (The
Speaker) by replacing the second and third paragraphs with:

      A citizen is any player other than the Speaker. Changing the holder of
      the Speaker office is secured with threshold 1.

      The office of Speaker CANNOT be held by anyone other than a first-class
      player, and the Speaker CANNOT deregister.

The following succeeds only if the above failed: I transfer a ruble to
my Speaker Account.  I cause the I cause the President to repeal Rule
2380. I cause the President to cause Proposal 7310 to take effect. I
cause the President to amend Rule 103 as described above. I cause the
President to repeal Rule 2326 (The President).

Ok, so here's the different possibilities:

First, my original escalation either succeeded in whole or failed
entirely. If it succeeded, it led to the following:

  a) The enactment of Win by Junta and King of the Hill
  b) The repeal of rule 2380

If it failed, rule 2380 was left intact.

In my message, my repeal of 2380 is based on a previous intent, as is
my repeal of 2326.

Then, omd attempted eir counterscam. This could have gone a number of
ways, because both the first part and the second part could have
failed separately, so I'll break this down into cases:

- My escalation failed. omd's counterscam failed entirely.

In this case, Rule 2380 was intact up until this post. I repealed it
via the President (which is powerful due to Presidential Power, and
thus capable of rule changes) and caused an identical one to be
reenacted (having enough power, the President can modify a substantive
aspect of 2380 if causing it to take effect is substantive).

- My escalation failed. The first part of omd's counterscam (amending
rule 2380) succeeded but the second did not.

In this case, I repealed the modified 2380 and enacted a copy of the
original, reestablishing my dictatorship. This works, because omd's
followup failed because it relied on Rule 2382, which was never
enacted.

- My escalation failed. The second part of omd's counterscam succeeded.

Impossible; for Rule 2382 to exist for the second part of the
counterscam, my escalation had to have suceeded.

- My esclataion succeeded. omd's counterscam failed.

The game state here is clear, I think. I have repealed all the enabler
rules, so that King of the Hill is all that remains.

- My escalation succeeded. The first part of omd's counterscam succeeded.

Impossible, as my escalation repealed rule 2380.

- My escalation succeeded. The second part, but not the first part, of
omd's counterscam succeeded.

In this case, my followup earlier in this message succeeded, at least
in part. In any case, King of the Hill was enacted properly, and I may
or may not have just repealed all the enable rules omd used.

*Regardless* of the outcome, The President is repealed and The Speaker
is amended. If my original scam succeeded, Slave Golems is repealed as
well and the "make proposals take effect" scam is removed.

As such, I CFJ on the following:
 - There is a rule with ID number 2384. [My scam succeeded]
 - In this message, I caused (possibly indirectly) the repeal of rule
2382 and, at the time, it included the word 'omd'. [My scam succeeded,
as did omd's, as did my repeal]
 - There is a rule with ID number 2382. [My scam succeeded, as did
omd's, but my follow-up repeal failed.]
 - In this message, I caused (possibly indirectly) the repeal of rule
2380 and, at the time, it included the word 'omd'. [My scam failed,
and omd's succeeded]

The remaining possibility, if all these are FALSE, is that both our
scams failed.

Arguments to follow.

========================================================================

Judge FKA441344's Arguments:

Looking at the uses of "2380" in the public forums, I don't think they
managed to clearly assign it to a rule or identify a rule. Therefore,
scshunt's attempt to cause the president to repeal it was too
ambiguous/unclear to succeed. E did manage to repeal 2326, but 2326
did not include the word 'omd', so no rule including the word 'omd'
was repealed. I judge this case FALSE.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

For the record, this is my mistake.  2380 was supposed to
be the rule
enacted by Richard Potato Board; I updated my web ruleset to include
it shortly after the rule was created, but by the time the ruleset got
published, scshunt had already purportedly repealed it, so the
published version included only 2382 (Win by Junta) and 2384 (King of
the Hill).

http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2380
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2381
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2382
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2383
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2384

i really need to rewrite my web rules system.

========================================================================