Re: [s-b] [s-d] [Oracle] CFI 123a

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:21:03 -0700
> From: gvistica@xxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a
> 
> This is an invalid ruling.
> 
> Per Rule 42, "an Appeals Court shall give one of the following responses to the 
> Appeal: 1.) AFFIRMS  - The appeals court affirms the decision made in the prior 
> Judgement. 2.) VACATES  - The appeals court reverses the decision made in the 
> prior Judgement. 3.) MODIFIES - The appeals court modifies the decision made in 
> the prior Judgement, and includes a new Judgement. 4.) REMAND   - The appeals 
> court returns the CFI to the prior Judge for review. "
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 4:10:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a
> > 
> > I answer CFI 123a TRUE, deferring to the arguments of the appellant. 
> > On Jul  27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at  4:45 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> > >>  FALSE. The player generally known as teucer does not have the name "Murphy"  
> >as
> > >> this name is already in use as a unique identifier for another  player. If 
> >teucer
> > >> were to have the name "Murphy", that would violate  the first paragraph of 
> >Rule
> > >> 2/0, "All game entities must have  uniquely identifying names", which I 
> >interpret
> > >> to mean that all  identifying names held by a player [[basically all names 
> >that
> > >> aren't  titles]].
> > > 
> > > I appeal the above judgement. Arguments: While the  judge is correct
> > > that "All game entities must have uniquely-identifying  names", and
> > > this unambiguously means all identifying names held by  players must be
> > > unique, the fact that something MUST happen does *not*  mean that it
> > > does - merely that players who MUST do something are in  violation of
> > > the rule in question. (See Rule 14.) Ergo, the MUST clause  in Rule 2
> > > does not block me from becoming a player with the relevant  name; it
> > > merely means that the other Murphy is breaking Rule 2. (I do  have to
> > > specify a unique name when joining, but as I in fact specified  four of
> > > them I should be good.)
> > > 
> > > - teucer


Correct, that answer is invalid.

I amend the Oracle's report for nweek 173 to state, in addition to the information previously given, that CFI 123/0A1 is awaiting judgement by the Appeals Court Judge 0x44.

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