Subject: RE: MN: Re: Game 4 Buzz on miKi.

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:25:38 +0100

>I interpret this to mean that at the end of my Player Move which 
>includes the Straddle, as opposed to my Piece Move which is 
>the movement of my token from Whitechapel to Moorgate, my 
>piece should be left adjacent to a token stack. This I have done. 
>The size of the token stack is 5 which allows me to reach MC 
>from Moorgate.

Mm. I see how you're working it, but it seems counter-intuitive 
to me - I've visualised it almost as 'jumping off' the token stack at
the end of your piece move,
the size of the stack determining how far you can jump. We've
seen straddles before, though - how were they played then?

>We still need adjudication,

Indeed we do.

-Graeme.

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:35:00 +0100 (BST)

>We still need adjudication,

Going by the book on this one, I can't assign a Referee until the
original Buzzer (Grimace) has said whether e agrees with your
argument or not.

Seems like a fair win to me, anyway, semantic quibbles aside.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Many an ancient lord's last words had been,
'You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh.'"
-- Terry Pratchett, "Interesting Times"

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:33:57 +0100

>I interpret this to mean that at the end of my Player Move which includes
>the Straddle, as opposed to my Piece Move which is the movement of my
>token from Whitechapel to Moorgate, my piece should be left adjacent to a
>token stack. This I have done. The size of the token stack is 5 which
>allows me to reach MC from Moorgate.
>

I also read it this way until I tried to buzz Dunx (in Game 3?) for not being
on/adjacent to a Token Stack after performing a Straddle. I think the wording
is ambiguous enough to claim this is a valid interpretation of the rule, but
despite the ambiguity I feel that the context shows it is clearly not the
intended meaning, and that is probably the more important factor.

That's my opinion, anyway.

dave

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:38:19 +0100 (BST)

I really should check my mail before sending the stuff I've written
whilst offline. Pft.

>>We still need adjudication,

Fair enough. [spins the bottle] The Referee for this Buzz shall be dave.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Girl afraid; where do his intentions lay? Or does he even have any?"
-- The Smiths, "Girl Afraid"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 13 Jul 98 14:43:46 +0100

If I may interject, I think we're dealing with relict wording here. 

Grimace is interpreting the Straddle rule in pretty much the way I 
intended (sorry, I'm using rather dubious special insight as the author), 
that is that token stack proximity is to be measured from the end of the 
Piece Move (his explanation based on 'jumping off' is exactly how I had 
visualised it, in fact). 

miKi is interpreting the Straddle rule in light of the current definition 
of Player Move so that e is measuring token stack proximity from the 
Piece's position after the Straddle. Effectively, e's Straddling *to* a 
stack rather than *from* it. 

Fundamentally, this is all to do with changes in meaning - when I wrote 
Straddling Nancy, Player Move was what is now Piece Move. Of course now 
Player Move includes Actions. Unfortunately (and I shall raise my hands 
and say 'mea culpa' here) the Straddling rule has not been kept up to 
date with this change in meaning. 

Thus whilst I would argue against the validity of the Straddle on grounds 
of intent (ie what miKi's done isn't what I meant at *all*), I think e's 
performed a valid feat of semantic interpretation based on what the rule 
in the current context. So I think it's probably a valid win, even though 
I disagree violently with it. 

Congratulations. Probably. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:05:58 +0100

>Congratulations. Probably. 

Sorry if I'm merely postponing an inevitable result and prolonging the agony of
Game 4, but I stand by my judgment.

dave

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 13 Jul 98 15:10:37 +0100

dave wrote: 
>I wrote: 

I should apologise for that bit of mis-timed commentary on my part. Kevan's 
message nominating you as Judge on this one arrived a moment after I sent 
off my own thoughts on teh matter. 

>Sorry if I'm merely postponing an inevitable result and prolonging the 
>agony of Game 4, but I stand by my judgment. 

So you should, sir. I had forgotten about the precedent, in all honesty.

---

From: Graeme Jefferis <Graeme.Jefferis@f...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:01:07 +0100

>Thus whilst I would argue against the validity of the 
>Straddle on grounds of intent (ie what miKi's done isn't 
>what I meant at *all*), I think e's performed a valid feat 
>of semantic interpretation based on what the rule in the 
>current context. So I think it's probably a valid win, even 
>though I disagree violently with it.

Yes. Makes sense, really. After all, this is a Nomic as
opposed to an IMCS-regulated game; changes of rule meaning
mid-game are, of course, to be expected. This just wasn't 
one I'd picked up on.

-Graeme.