Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fixing the Game

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:26 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> The CFI submitted in the message found at http://lists.ellipsis.cx/archives/spoon-business/spoon-business-201007/msg00119.html is
> CFI 124. I assign CFI 124 to Judge teucer.

This depends on the answer to 123a; as a judge, I am honor-bound to
consider precedent, after all. However, I will judge it per the
arguments in the recently attempted judgement of CFI 123a, which will
presumably be reused to submit a properly-stated judgement at a not
very much later date. Thus, the name in question did not uniquely
identify the player currently known as Gitchel at the time the CFI was
submitted. This should make the statement trivially FALSE but for two
caveats:

One, if "unique" means "no other is like it" rather than "nobody else
has it too." As I believe names are things possessed by entities, and
are created by players joining, I do not believe this interpretation
would render the CFI TRUE, but I mention it for completeness. If
instead names are to be viewed as abstract strings, and we merely come
to possess them, then all names are unique; at the time of the CFI two
players happened to be using the same one. As the requirement of
uniqueness would be vacuous in this instance, it is clear this is not
what the ruleset writers intended, nor indeed is it what game custom
indicates.

Two, it is possible that the "my" in the statement could be taken to
refer to whoever is stating something about it at the time. It would
be erroneous for me to declare that, as of the submission of CFI 124,
my name was not unique; I had several unique names at that time.
However, this is unambiguously not the claimant's intent, and I
believe that establishing a precedent that CFIs don't always say what
you expect them to would, while certainly in keeping with B Nomic's
rich history of excessive literal-mindedness (cf. ehird and various
statements concerning retarded monkeys, as well as 1st era precedent
that we are in fact all fucking nuts), be needlessly destructive and
I'm not actually going to consider it correct for the sake of this
CFI.

FALSE.

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