| Craig Daniel on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:14:23 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player? |
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