==============================  CFJ 2987  ==============================

    If a player were to win the game, the game would end.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      10 Apr 2011 22:52:30 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         15 Apr 2011 22:38:32 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     15 Apr 2011 23:29:45 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Winning is not currently defined in the rules. By the ordinary-language
sense of winning, winning terminates the game. Thus if a player were to
get 250 points, they could win the game and end Agora.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Walker:

By the Agoran sense of the word, a 'game' is the time
between two players winning the game, and the established meaning is
that the game does not end. I know that the various definitions
surrounding winning have been repealed, but the judge may still find
that their definitions hold under game custom. Even considering the
normal sense of the word, someone who has never played Agora before
would probably not think that winning currently ends the game, if they
read the ruleset as it currently stands.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

First let me note the following:  If X (for any X) would cause the game
to end, then X would be IMPOSSIBLE unless the rule empowering X had
precedence over R1698.

Now on this case, which presupposes that such an impossible/high-powered
X CAN happen.

I agree with the caller that the rules don't define what happens to
Agora when someone "wins the game".  And I agree that, by common
definition, games generally end when someone wins.

However, it's possible to be a little more specific when defining Agora.
Specifically, Agora is not just a game but a game of Nomic (R1698).  I
believe that, especially within mathematical or legal circles, the game
of Nomic has become widely enough known, at least within "legal or
mathematical" circles that it is still within reasonably common
definitions to say "Agora is a game of Nomic" and to ask "do games of
Nomic, in general, end when someone wins?

So, a story:

My first game of Nomic was played face-to-face (before any newsgroup
Nomic existed).  Someone "achieved 100 points" and thus was "the winner"
(Suber Rule 208).  The very first thing after that was someone said "So,
you're the winner.  That doesn't mean the game is over!" and invoked
judgement, and the judge agreed.  The game continued until someone
passed a rule explicitly ending it.  The original "winner" was in fact
quite annoyed, as e assumed games ended when someone won.  E was wrong
in this case and e Left in a Huff.

In my second game of Nomic, it took a very long time for someone to
achieve 100 points; and when e did, everyone was tired and said "you win
- congratulations - game over."

These stories are brought up to demonstrate:  it is wholly silent on
whether games of Nomic end when someone wins.  Figuring it out is in
fact part of the game.

So, what about Agora?  Given that the rules are currently silent, is it
a nomic-that-ends or a nomic-that-doesn't-end?

Arguments that, as a Nomic, Agora ends when someone wins:
    - Games generally end when someone wins.

Arguments that Agora doesn't end:

    - It has always been held as not ending in the past (game custom).
      [Note that the requirement that a judge consider game custom is
      explicitly against using the view of a hypothetical naive new
      player as the caller suggests].

    - R1698 strongly implies continuity in the face of winning.

    - So does R1586.

    - Not all the past judgements about R104 ("the first game") were made
      in reference to the win conditions defined at the time; they were
      based on the historical fact that the game had an incremented
      counter at one point without "ending" as a point of precedent.

    - Insomuch as ending a game is like killing it, it's not in "the best
      interests" of the particular instance of the game to end it.

    - Finally, the current rule for Winning implicitly implies that the
      game continues after a win, by stating that AFTER a win the rules
      still authorize a patent award (by standard definitions, when a
      game is over, the rules governing that game cease to have binding
      meaning).

I find that the weight of the evidence is in favor of the game
continuing even if a win occurs.  With the weight of history that
currently exists, ending Agora would likely take a fairly explicit action
of an instrument with a greater power than Rule 1698.  FALSE.

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