Re: [s-d] more CFI discussion

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 27, 2004, at 12.17 AM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

> It is undefined what happens to cards that have been laid down.
> Araltaln's ruling says that cards that have been "laid down" 
> [lowercase]
> cannot be "laid down" [lowercase] again until they have been "picked 
> up"
> [lowercase], an action you can't perform right now.
>
> If the words "lay down" were uppercase, you'd be right in saying you
> could lay your cards down more than once. But
> lowercase words have a meaning rooted in English. Unfortunately, in 
> this
> case that meaning is ambiguous. It is possible that they are no longer
> in your Hand, and it is possible that they are no longer in your
> possession. But there is no clear location defined for the cards.

I don't think there is any ambiguity about where my cards are. You 
claim that because the rules don't say  where they were moved to, we 
must not know where they are; I claim that because the rules don't say 
that they were moved at all, they weren't moved.

> I now once again cite r1727.B:
>
> B. The Deck
> The Deck is a collection of cards; if a card's location is not defined,
> it is moved to the Deck.
> When a player Draws a card, this means a card is chosen at random from
> the Deck an put in that player's hand.
> When a card is discarded, it is moved into the Deck.
>
> This wouldn't make sense if a Hand and the Deck weren't locations. If 
> my
> Hand isn't a location, then no Card in it has a defined location, and 
> so
> they should all go to the Deck, but that's not the case.
>
> Your last point is that by the Judge's ruling, the cards can't be moved
> to the Deck, because moving a Card to the deck implicitly "picks it up"
> [lowercase]. But if that's the case, then it is legal for a card to be
> picked up; that rule specifies how.

Laying it down again also implicitly 'picks it up', as you and Araltaln 
have insisted. So then it is indeed legal to pick them up, and you can 
do so by laying them down again.

That is to say, if the fact that moving logically requires picking up 
means that moving causes automatic picking up, then the fact that 
laying down requires picking up means that laying down causes automatic 
picking up.

> If you maintain that there is any possibility at all that your Cards 
> may
> have changed location, their location isn't defined. Araltaln's ruling
> indicates such a possibility. Thus the cards are now legally picked up
> under r1727.B, and they go to the Deck.

I don't admit any such possibility, and I don't think Araltaln's claim 
that they might be in my hand means that we don't know. It just means 
that it's not decided by the CFI, which is fine because we do know 
where they are.

> But since, as noted above, you can lay down Cards in the Deck, you 
> could
> lay them down again, contradicting the CFI ruling. I now have no idea
> what's going on; it appears that eir Ruling created a contradiction.

No, it just created a need for an Appeal.

I'm not trying to make a case for allowing my actions in the face of 
Araltaln's judgment. I'm claiming that Araltaln's arguments were 
logically flawed, and so the appellate judges should rule this FALSE 
once the CFI is appealed.

And that, I believe, will yield a completely consistent gamestate.

--
Wonko

How can you prove whether at this moment we are sleeping, and all our 
thoughts are a dream; or whether we are awake, and talking to one 
another in the waking state?
                -- Plato

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