Index ← 3711 CFJ 3716 3717 → text
===============================  CFJ 3716  ===============================

      D. Margaux is the Prime Minister.

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

Caller:                        D. Margaux

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by D. Margaux:                             17 Feb 2019 20:28:20
Assigned to Aris:                                 17 Feb 2019 20:56:35
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             26 Feb 2019 07:46:56

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

Caller's Arguments:

1) I won by cheating a while back (sorry!), and I think that triggered
ATMunn’s obligation to reappoint me as a new speaker (even though I was
already speaker).

2) Subsequently, Gaelan won by apathy, and that victory was upheld as
valid in a CFJ. (But maybe intents are broken? So is it really clear
that e actually did win by apathy?)

3) Then I declared a intent to deputise for PM “to appoint a new
speaker” (or similarly generic language), which G. challenged as perhaps
not specific enough to be a proper intent.

4) Then twg and I declared victory by apathy (probably?—but again, that
doesn’t work if intents are broken; and if intents _are_ broken, then
how did Gaelan win?).

5) I then declared an intent to deputise for PM to appoint twg
specifically to be speaker.

and then 6) I executed those intents by deputising as PM to appoint twg
to be speaker (if laureled); otherwise Gaelan (if laureled); otherwise
D. Margaux.

So, the questions are—did twg and I win by apathy (or are intents
broken)? If we did win, then both CFJs are TRUE (I think).

If we didn’t win by apathy, the other question is whether my “general”
intent was enough to deputise for PM? If so, then I am PM but twg isn’t
Speaker. And in that case, is Gaelan the Speaker or am I?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge's Arguments:

I judge both of these FALSE. It’s pretty clear that dependent actions in
general are broken. Furthermore, intents generally have to specify what
action is to be performed. If a proposal said “A new Speaker is appointed”,
everyone would be confused, and want to know who the the new Speaker was.
This example indicates that the specification isn’t specific enough to
specify an action. A more effective phrasing might be “For each player P, I
intend to deputize for the PM appoint P Speaker”. I will not at this time
rule whether stating an intent “for each person” would be overly broad,
although personally I think it should work.

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