[s-b] Let's have fun with timing, shall we?

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

A recent proposal attempted to put my name back to what it was prior
to the point where I stopped having one, but it didn't give me the
name I most recently intended to give myself. I'm therefore currently
named Rule 700. So to fix this tragic oversight, I change my name to
"Respected One."

(Note: this is still permitted, and it still appears to have the same
effect as before. Not having a name is of course now on the LOGAS,
though you have three ndays to acquire one if you don't have one.)

Then I change my name to Craig B. Daniel, and then at last I change it
to teucer, which is what I actually want it to be.

I now submit a CFI: "I have exactly one name."

Arguments: Rule 21 tells us that events occur on reaching the Public
Forum, and that events not caused by agents (including the loss of the
name "Respected One") occur when the rules indicate. Rule 49.B.4,
which defines the unique behavior of the name "Respected One",
indicates that the well-documented vanishing happens "whenever a
player who has the title 'Respected One' fails to meet the
aforementioned condition" - which I fail to meet.

I see two obvious interpretations of this situation. First, the name
changes all apply, in order, on this message reaching the PF, after
which I would lose my name if it were to be Respected One. In this
case, the CFI is plainly TRUE - my name is teucer, and I have no other
names. I find this hard to believe, since it requires positing a gap
between name changes during which I failed to meet the specified
condition and must have lost my name. Second, the name changes occur
sequentially, and immediately after the first one but before the
second, I lost my name. My name is now blank, and I have three ndays
to correct this unfortunate situation on pain of ass-kicking. In this
situation, obviously the CFI is FALSE - I have *zero* names. But it
also seems incorrect, since it suggests that somehow two things that
reach the PF at precisely the same moment can not only be ordered but
can in fact have things happening in between them - in which case, the
obvious question the judge should be prepared to answer is precisely
*when* I could possibly have lost my name; it must be after the
"Respected One" name change reached the PF and yet before the "Craig
B. Daniel" change did so.

Given that these are both clearly wrong, the judgement of UNDECIDED
seems indicated. But there is a third possibility, and the fact that I
see no clear reason why it is incorrect means that the falsity of the
other two is not paradoxical after all. The last interpretation is
that the name changes are simultaneous, and thus gave me not one but
three names. I lose one of these, obviously.

This third case is confused, however, by the fact that the CFI is
happening in the same post as the name changes, reaching the PF at the
same time they do. The judgement is supposed to indicate the truth of
the statement at the time of the Call, rather than of the judgement.
Yet the call is problematically simultaneous with the name changes! If
it came before them, it would be trivially TRUE - my name at that time
was Rule 700. If it comes after them, it is trivially FALSE, because I
have two or three names (two if it somehow also comes after the loss
of "Respected One," which has the same criticism as the second
interpretation above, and false if it somehow comes before that part,
which has the same problem as interpretation number one - this
quasiparadox is why I phrased the CFI such that this doesn't have to
be decidable for the CFI to remain FALSE in this condition). But how
many names do I have during the process of changing my name? This is
not an easy question for a judge to answer, and I'm glad I'm
submitting this CFI rather than judging it.

The third interpretation is problematic for another reason - game
custom presumes, and the rules certainly used to indicate (though I
can't find where they do so now, if in fact they do) that actions
posted in one message are resolved in order. But if this is no longer
supported by the text of the rules, then the phrasing of Rule 21 means
we must instead favor simultaneous resolution. While I can't at this
moment see any problem with this, other than the fact that it allows
me to have multiple names (not actually problematic, but it might
become a headache for the registrar if it catches on), I suspect
strange corner cases will be found, whether by accident or design.

 - teucer
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business