==============================  CFJ 3359  ==============================

    scshunt's Victory Announcement of 30 Jun was correct.

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

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  FKA441344
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Fool
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by omd:                          03 Jul 2013 18:35:48 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  08 Jul 2013 16:52:34 GMT
FKA441344 recused:                      21 Jul 2013 15:14:04 GMT
Assigned to Fool:                       23 Jul 2013 17:19:26 GMT
Judged TRUE by Fool:                    29 Jul 2013 01:39:35 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

So, the wording is:

      Any player CAN, by announcement, destroy nine Ribbons in eir
      possession, each of a different color, to satisfy the Victory
      Condition of Renaissance and award emself the Patent Title
      Renascent.

and from the Patent Titles rule:

      A person specifically authorized by the rules to award (revoke)
      a Patent Title SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the
      conditions authorizing em to do so are announced, unless there
      is an open judicial case contesting the validity of those
      conditions.  Awarding or revoking a Patent Title by any other
      method is secured.

A few issues here.  First, scshunt's first attempt to destroy Ribbons
was worded as:
> I destroy all my nine ribbons (BCKLOMRTV) to satisfy the Victory
> Condition of Renaissance.
and eir second:
> I award myself a Black Ribbon and destroy all my Ribbons to win
> by Renaissance.

The second purports to do something that is impossible: satisfying a
Victory Condition is not the same as winning (the latter occurs only
after a Victory Announcement ratifies); and both of them are
incomplete.  Do they still work?  If not, was e still successful in
destroying all eir Ribbons (which e could do by announcement)?

Second, does authorizing scshunt to perform a complicated action that
includes awarding a Patent Title count as authorizing em to award a
Patent Title?  In that case, there would be no Power issue.

Third, if there is a conflict - i.e. it is IMPOSSIBLE to destroy
Ribbons to satisfy the Victory Condition and award the Patent Title -
does that block the whole action?  If the rule said "after someone
destroys eir ribbons, e gains the Patent Title", it would be clear
that it did not, but as worded it seems to be an essential part of the
action.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

Even if it does, the award is pragmatic, and since the
Herald did not award Renascent to me before I awarded myself a
Transparent Ribbon, the award still succeeds.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

It's not the Herald that would be authorized to award Renascent, it
would be you, as part of the victory condition action.

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

Judge Fool's Arguments:

Both TRUE.

June 30th 00:04
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg25113.html
I destroy all my nine ribbons (BCKLOMRTV) to satisfy the Victory
Condition of Renaissance.
[...]
I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.

July 3rd 01:40
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg25177.html
I award myself a Black Ribbon and destroy all my Ribbons to win by
Renaissance.
July 3rd 2:46
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg25180.html
To force a CFJ:

Victory Announcement: I satisfied (again) the Victory Condition of
Renaissance.

The rule in question (2387, now repealed) used to read:
(+T) If a player does not possess the Patent Title Renascent, e CAN
earn a Transparent Ribbon by announcement.
[...]
Any player CAN, by announcement, destroy nine Ribbons in eir
possession, each of a different color, to satisfy the Victory
Condition of Renaissance and award emself the Patent Title
Renascent.

However, the patent title rule (649) said:
A person specifically authorized by the rules to award (revoke) a
Patent Title SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions
authorizing em to do so are announced, unless there is an open
judicial case contesting the validity of those conditions. Awarding
or revoking a Patent Title by any other method is secured.
And this rule had higher power than R2387.

The fact that Sean Hunt, the disputed winner, did have the 9 ribbons to
destroy in the first instance is, it seems, not being challenged, nor are 8 of
the 9 ribbons in the second instance. At issue is: did he have the transparent
ribbon in the second instance, were his wins worded correctly, and did R2387
work at all?

But really as with CFJ 3357, it seems the underlying issue is:

 who wrote this junk?

However the badly written rule has since been repealed. This mitigates the
offence, thus harsh sentences are probably not appropriate in this case. I am
in a good mood so I will let you all off with a slap on the wrist. Just don't
let it happen again.

So. If we read R2387 as authorising him to award a title, then, the disputed
winner was only compelled to award himself a patent title "in a timely
fashion" (and in fact, never, since it was promptly called to judgement)
whereas the Transparent Ribbon clause of R2387 only blocks it if he already
had the patent title.

If we read it as saying to it directly awards a title, then it would fail due
to conflict with a higher power rule. Is then "satisfy a victory condition"
part of a compound action that also fails? This seems dubious on two points.
First, that failing the whole thing is the right way a conflict with a higher
rule should be handled, rather than just failing the conflicting bit. Second,
that satisfying a victory condition is an action at all. It's a condition.
Announcing that you satisfy a victory condition is an action, of course.

It was also questioned whether the second win was correct since he destroyed
the ribbons "to win" rather than "to satisfy the victory condition". This is a
light metonymy, and for that matter, I repeat that it is dubious that "satisfy
a victory condition" was supposed to be an action. Rather, he did the required
action, clearly intending to satisfy the victory condition in doing so. The
condition was satisifed, and he announced it well within the time limit.

You're welcome. omd owes me a gaudy Violet tie. And mind that it's Violet and
not Magenta.

Long live the Queen.

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