Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, I'll buy it. But I would have preferred you had sealed off any
possibility of 9999 being the correct number by saying it's false anyway.
You would have been saying, "If that possibility is true, it's false." So it
couldn't be true, then. But if you answer PARADOX, you are saying, "If the
possibility is true, then it's paradoxically so."

I claim the answers to Consultations 9999 or 9999+i (whichever is the
number) to be CONSISTENT.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't get it, why is ehird not being a player a paradox? And, btw,
> hooray
> > for long-standing game custom!
>
> In 9999, ehird is not a player for reasons 2-4 - but if e's not a
> player, the Consultation doesn't have that number and the judgment
> thus doesn't exist. An accurate judgment that e's not a player is thus
> impossible. On the other hand, a judgment that e is a player is
> inherently inaccurate. Ergo, no other valid answer exists.
>
> My judgment of 9999+i, which is the *actual* number of that
> Consultation, doesn't have that problem and thus isn't PARADOX, it's
> FALSE, aka NO, indicating that ehird isn't playing.
>
> Note that the custom of taking ambiguous actions (forbidden by a
> series of rules, the specific text of 5e10 being a recent example) to
> mean only those not fully specified is also quite clearly what the
> rules mean. Our history of doing it that way is evidence that it is
> correct, not a reason for it to be so.
>
>  - teucer
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



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