spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfj 666

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Naath Thabana,

> Statement: The game has never had an object numbered
> 655. 
> 
> Analysis: 
> 
> The Reality Police had the sushi.
> 
> The Reality Police's message implies that he sushified
> the text: 
> 
> 
<CFJ><statement<ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalC
FJ> .
> </statement><defendant>BaronvonSkippy</defendant><analysis>Ihavethesushi.IfIra
> nth
> isthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,it'slegal.IfIdid
> n'
> t,it'snot.I'mnottelling.</analysis></CFJ>uin.
> 
> then added whitespace and linebreaks.
> 
> However sushifying it via Korean produces the text:
> Inside a Korean 
> 
> sushifying it via French and German produces the text:
> 
> ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.BaronvonSkippyI
> ha
> vethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwar
> ds
> , it' slegal. IfIdidn' T, it' snot.I' mnottelling.uin.
> 
> 
> Neither of these two can be turned into the message
> sent by adding only whitespace and linebreaks,
> therefore he failed to operate sushification correctly
> and so the CFJ #655 never existed.
> 
> Judgement
> dunno
> 
> why?
> 
> because I said so!
> I accept that the object labeled CFJ 655 is/was not a
> CFJ, since it wasn't a legal post (on buisness forum
> by player with sushi... unsusified).
> 
> Also there is no rule 655.
> 
> However I do not know if there has ever been an object
> so numbered in the past.
> 
> If I'm stupid, and the system goes, give it the next
> number up and we can only use each number once then
> this CFI is TRUE.

'dunno' hardly counts as a judgment. But you're right. There was an object
655, because if uin's CFJ was illegal, then I believe the next thing that
gets recognized, be it proposal, rule, or CFJ, must be 655 instead.

-- 
Wonko