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

[Jeremy Cook <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 
> On Oct 26, 2004, at 11.03 AM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:47:59AM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 26, 2004, at 7.56 AM, Araltaln wrote:
> >>
> >>> Right.
> >>>
> >>> I rule TRUE on the cfi. While it is true that there are many many
> >>> examples of card games where cards which are laid down don't leave 
> >>> the
> >>> player's possession, or even in some cases the player's hand, there's
> >>> still one thing they have in common--it's awfully hard to lay cards
> >>> down which have already been laid down without picking them back up
> >>> again. Common usage is a necessary evil, and it's certainly 
> >>> applicable
> >>> in this case. As picking the Cards up is not otherwise allowed for by
> >>> the Rules, and the act of picking the Cards up would modify the game
> >>> state, I'm going to have to rule that it can't be done.
> >>
> >> So your claim, then, is that they remain in my hand but are considered
> >> to be 'laid down' and cannot be laid down again until they have been
> >> 'picked up'?
> >
> > No. See the CFI - when location is unknown, they return to the Deck.
> 
> The CFI doesn't say the location is unknown. The statement is that I 
> didn't succeed in laying them down more than once; the judge declared 
> that the statement is true because once laid down a real world card 
> cannot be laid down again until it has been picked up, and thus the 
> same must be true of a B Nomic card. Neither of these says that the 
> card isn't still in my hand, and indeed Araltaln's argument 
> specifically states that it makes no claim as to the location of the 
> cards.

Where is that specifically stated? It's clear from the ruling that the
Cards are no longer in your hand. Or do you insist on another CFI for
the statement "The Cards are currently in the Deck"? That was in my
argument and not denied by the Judge.

> 
> If the CFI's argument is valid, I submit that a Real World (RW) card 
> can't be put back into a RW deck without first picking up the card, so 
> by the same logic as was used in the CFI, we can't put the card back 
> into the deck.

r1727.B:
The Deck is a collection of cards; if a card's location is not defined,
it is moved to the Deck. 


> 
> The location doesn't really matter, by the way: the rules permit me to 
> lay down three in sequence regardless of their location.

See the CFI - uin's precedent indicates that you need to possess the
cards to perform actions with them. Or do you claim you can possess
cards that aren't in your Hand?

> 
> But I disagree with the argument anyway - RW cards need to be picked up 
> first because they've been physically laid down. Our cards don't have a 
> physical existence, and so I could not have physically laid them down. 
> It's downright impossible. But without them being physically down, 
> there's no reason why I need to physically pick them up; indeed, that's 
> also impossible.

Not the point - we use words like "lay down" because they apply outside
the physical realm, to creations of our minds. There are no physical 
locations in this game, for instance, but we meaningfully talk about 
locations.

> 
> So the fundamental differences between RW cards and our cards mean that 
> the properties Araltaln cites don't apply to ours.
> 
> I think e's trying to claim that the intent of the rule was to follow 
> the real-world definition as closely as possible. I don't accept that 
> the intent should make any difference; to accept that would invalidate 
> most scams and make my favorite aspect of the game meaningless.

That's not really possible. Our rules aren't a formal system; they're
rooted in English, where ambiguities are resolved by looking at what the
intent must reasonably have been.
> 
> Once the Clock's back on and the rules are all up-to-date, I do plan on 
> appealing this CFI, as the argument is invalid.
> 
> >>> All you people with tomato actions really ought to roll the necessary
> >>> dice, even if it's going to turn out you can't actually do what you
> >>> did :P
> >>
> >> They trivially can't - bd's proposal fixed the rule to read:
> >> "Any player who has at least one tomato may at any time declare their
> >> intent to throw a Tomato at any other player. Doing so destroys one of
> >> their tomatos. The targetted player is Hit with the Tomato with a
> >> probability of 1/4. If a player is Hit with a Tomato, that player and
> >> all cards in eir become Stained With Tomato Juice."
> >>
> >> That pretty much bans everything everyone's tried.
> >
> > Except that the nweek hasn't started yet, since we don't have results,
> > so the rules haven't changed yet.
> 
> The Clock is Off; actions taken will not occur until it turns back on, 
> which will also be the beginning of the new nweek.

Which means there exist no tomatoes now anyway. And uin's precedent says
that no Player can throw something e doesn't possess.

> 
> The new nweek may be a long time in coming: Thanks to Araltaln's 
> judgment, I need to redo a bunch of things before Cards will be 
> properly correct: a Rotary Exchange was played illegally, my cards may 
> or may not have been in the deck, and this means that all subsequent 
> draws were done wrongly... basically, I need to undo and redo all card 
> actions taken since I first laid down my cards.

And we also need to fix the Tildex count.

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