==============================  CFJ 2812  ==============================

    In Proposal 6740, "Award a win to player..." should be interpreted
    as "Award a win to each player..."


Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Murphy:                       14 Jul 2010 22:05:40 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         14 Jul 2010 22:21:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      15 Jul 2010 18:27:43 GMT


Judge G.'s Arguments:

CFJ 2808 found that the adoption a proposal with this text:
> Award a win to player who did not acknowledge the existence of this
> proposal in a public or discussion forum after the time it was
> submitted and before the time it was adopted.
awarded a win to one or more players, and so was not wholly ambiguous.

However, one can insert many words between "to" and "player".  "To a
player" or "To the player" or "to each player" or "to all player[s]".
It would be arbitrary judicial activism, however, to insert further
procedures for choosing a subset from the set of possible winners (e.g.
for a judge to insert "to the first player", "to a random player", or
even "to an UNDETERMINED player").

The key, in particular, to rejecting "an UNDETERMINED player" is that
the actual win condition (R2188) is pluralized:
       Upon a win announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or
       more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
       Winning Condition of Legislation.

so unless there is explicit strong uniqueness or further choice
procedures specified in the proposal, the assumption should be that a
proposal whose text purports to award a win to "a person who satisfies
X" or even "the person who satisfies X" awards a win to all those
persons who satisfy X [or, by the CFJ statement, to "each" person who
satisfies X].  TRUE.