[s-d] Re: [s-b] CFJ on Wonko

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 18, 2004, at 3.58 AM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

> I make the following CFI:
>
> {{
> Statement: Wonko did not succeed in laying down eir sequence of Green,
> Blue, and Indigo more than once.
>
> Defendant: Wonko
>
> Argument: By r393, players may only change the gamestate if a Rule
> specifies it. r1903 specifies that Players may lay down cards; game
> precedent and uin's ruling on CFJ 688 indicate that the Player must 
> have
> possession of the cards e lays down.

I don't believe that game precedent or Uin's ruling say any such thing.

There is no precedent to suggest that players may only perform actions 
on objects they possess, and indeed there is substantial precedent 
against it. Consider for example the fact that I am allowed to vote on 
your proposals despite not owning them, that you are allowed to Kick Me 
in the Ass despite the fact that you don't own me, and that anyone can 
Fulfill a Duty despite not owning it.

The rule of CFJ 688 asserts that actions which target game objects may 
not be taken unless the necessary game objects exist. It does not, 
however, assert that said objects must be possessed by the player 
taking the action.

Indeed, I could have laid down Green, Blue, and Indigo even if they 
were all still in the Deck, as r1903 permits any player to lay down any 
sequence of three or more cards (but I couldn't have done it while they 
were in other player's hands, because r636, __Keep your hands off!__, 
forbids it).

This is a moot point, though, as all three cards were and still are in 
my hand.

> The term "lay down" in r1903 is not defined or capitalized; thus logic
> and game precedent would suggest that it has the ordinary English
> meaning. When one lays down any object, one no longer has possession of
> the object. When one lays down a card in a card game, it changes
> location in that card game; in the context of a card game, "lay down"
> means the same thing as "play". Thus r1728 would suggest that a card
> laid down returns to the Deck.

I disagree completely with this paragraph. First of all, the 
capitalization convention only applies when the meaning of the word 
applies equally well to our game. Since the standard english word 
refers to a physical action that obviously cannot be performed on 
something as abstract as one of our Cards, the standard definition 
can't be applied.

Secondly, it is by no means true that "when one lays down any object, 
one no longer has possession of the object". Consider, for example, the 
game of Go Fish, where each player collects 'books' and lays them down 
in front of em; the books are considered to belong to the player who 
formed them.

Thirdly, in the context of a card game, it need not be true that to 
"lay down" a card is the same as to "play" it. Consider for example the 
game of Magic: The Gathering, in which it is quite common to lay down 
cards into a graveyard or onto a library without playing them (when one 
is forced to discard, for example).

For both, consider Monopoly (which more closely parallels our game 
anyway, as the cards are used not as the entirety of the game, but as a 
supplemental tool) - when a player lays a property card down in front 
of emself, it is not considered to have been 'played', and is still 
considered to be owned by the player.

Finally, I strongly disagree with the implicit assumption that because 
it 'makes sense' for a card to go to the deck when it is laid down, it 
must therefore do so. Frankly, I would have expected better from 
somebody who just tried to throw one thousand nonexistent tomatoes at 
another player :) The fact that the real-world analogy of part of this 
game might behave in a certain way should not, and indeed cannot, be 
construed to mean that the game itself should behave in the same way.

I am afraid that the above paragraph is wrong on all counts.

> Further, r1727.B states "if a card's location is not defined, it is
> moved to the Deck". The above argument shows there is some doubt about
> the location of a card laid down, and the location of such a card is
> nowhere defined. Thus Wonko's three Cards returned to the Deck after e
> laid them down, and so e could not lay them down more than once.

I see no doubt - the cards were in my hand, the rules did not say they 
were moved, and thus they are still in my hand.

--
Wonko

"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
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss