Format for e-mail
| CFJ: | 2745 |
| Interest Index: | 3 |
| Statement: | Wooble is on the List of Succession. |
| Caller: | coppro |
| |
| Judge: | G. |
| Judgement: | TRUE |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | Murphy |
History:
| Called by coppro | 26 Nov 2009 17:57:01 GMT |
| Assigned to G. | 29 Nov 2009 17:55:15 GMT |
| Judged TRUE by G. | 1 Dec 2009 17:29:23 GMT |
Caller's Arguments: | | (26 Nov 2009 17:57:01 GMT) |
Is the List of Succession the active players awarded the 5 most recent
instances of Champion? Is it the active players awarded the 5 most
recent instances of Champion among active players? The text of the
rule seems unclear, and requires careful semantic analysis (which I
won't provide, as I'm not the judge).
Caller's Evidence: | | (26 Nov 2009 17:57:01 GMT) |
Rule 402 reads:
The List of Succession is a list of the five active players who
were most recently awarded the patent title Champion.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.: | | (28 Nov 2009 00:04:40 GMT) |
The enumerated items are players, not title instances. A person is not
more than one player (more than one element) no matter how many times e
has won. If a player is on the list more than once, there are not five
players on the list (in the set).
Judge G.'s Arguments: | | (1 Dec 2009 17:29:23 GMT) |
The phrase in question:
> Rule 402 reads:
> The List of Succession is a list of the five active players who
> were most recently awarded the patent title Champion.
The caller argues that the clause should be read as the list of the last
5 championship titles that were awarded, and the players that held them,
even if a given player is listed more than once. This list (as it was
at the time of the CFJ) is List A in Evidence.
The "traditional" way of reading the list is that it is the list of 5
distinct (unique) players who were most recently awarded the title.
(This is List B in evidence).
The mathematical and common definition of "list" does not preclude
duplicates from occurring. If instead of "list", the rule read "ordered
set", it would clearly indicate the traditional meaning, as every element
of a set must be unique. Therefore, taking the word "list" in isolation,
the caller is correct.
However, the phraseology "the five active players" does in fact strongly
suggest an enumerated set in common language. If I shouted out "I need
five volunteers" (without further qualification) it would not be common
sense to choose the same person twice. Further, if I said "name five
players with these characteristics" then naming a player twice wouldn't
count. Third, "the" in "the five players" implies a unique set that is
unique in its content (cardinality) as well as its ordinality. Fourth,
the phrase later in the rule "player [who] became part of the list the
longest time ago" implies that the date of being added and removed from
the list is a unique event per player, which makes less sense if a player
is added to the list twice. Finally, we have a strong tradition in
Agora of treating a player as the fundamental unit of individuality; e.g.
treating a player as "two positions" on a "list of players" would be more
supported in a game that subscribed to avatar theory rather than a theory
of players consisting of a set of unique persons.
All of this, along with the (weaker in importance) fact that it is
established custom, is sufficient to decide that the traditional
interpretation is reasonable and supported, although legislative
clarification would be nice.
Therefore, List B is a reasonable and appropriate one. TRUE.
Judge G.'s Evidence: | | (1 Dec 2009 17:29:23 GMT) |
List A: Last 5 championship titles awarded to currently active
players (all awarded Oct 2):
coppro (eldest addition to list; allegedly Speaker)
ais523
c.
ais523
coppro
List B: Last 5 (different) currently active players who received
championship titles:
Tiger (eldest addition to list; allegedly Speaker)
c.
ais523
coppro
Wooble
