Daniel Lepage on Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:42:29 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] Work is sucking the lifeforce from me--I mean, more than usual

On Nov 3, 2004, at 10.23 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

The CFI I was Recalling Shenanigans on was entitled "CFJ on Wonko" and
was on the statement "Wonko did not succeed in laying down eir sequence
of Green, Blue, and Indigo more than once."

Oh yeah. I'm not a legal Appellate Judge on that, since I'm the Plaintiff.

Anyway, what were the reasons?

Here was the important reason; there are at least a dozen messages from various players devoted to this, but this was the important part:

Rule 1903 states, "Any player may lay down a set of three or more cards in sequence".

By rule 1896, ' A text to the effect that "any player may do X" should be interpreted to mean that X is a Game Action'.

This means that laying down a set of three or more cards in sequence is a Game Action.

Also by rule 1896, "Any Outsider may take any Game Action at any time unless the rules say otherwise".

This means I can lay down a set of three cards at any time unless a rule says I can't lay down a set of three cards.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that I can't lay down a set of three cards. Specifically, nowhere does it say I can't lay down a set of three cards that have already been laid down.

So then it doesn't matter what 'lay down' logically ought to mean, because r1896 states explicitly that I can do it at any time.

There were further sub-arguments about whether this would cause them to leave my hand, etc., but the rules do clearly allow me to lay down any sequence of three cards, regardless of whether or not I have said cards.

It's a moot point now, though, unless somebody appeals Personman's ruling, since the ruling upholds my claim that through the indistinguishability scam I fixed the gamestate to a state consistent with this being FALSE, regardless of whether or not it actually was false. So the ruling on this is now just for determining precedent, as it no longer affects the gamestate.


"This gubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context" -David Moser, quoted by Douglas Hofstadter in his "Metamagical Themas" column in the January 1981 "Scientific American"

spoon-discuss mailing list