Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I VACATE the answer returned by the previous judge in 123. 

- 0x44

On Aug 1, 2010, at 6:28 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
>> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:21:03 -0700
>> From: gvistica@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a
>> 
>> This is an invalid ruling.
>> 
>> Per Rule 42, "an Appeals Court shall give one of the following responses to the 
>> Appeal: 1.) AFFIRMS  - The appeals court affirms the decision made in the prior 
>> Judgement. 2.) VACATES  - The appeals court reverses the decision made in the 
>> prior Judgement. 3.) MODIFIES - The appeals court modifies the decision made in 
>> the prior Judgement, and includes a new Judgement. 4.) REMAND   - The appeals 
>> court returns the CFI to the prior Judge for review. "
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 4:10:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a
>>> 
>>> I answer CFI 123a TRUE, deferring to the arguments of the appellant. 
>>> On Jul  27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at  4:45 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>>>>> FALSE. The player generally known as teucer does not have the name "Murphy"  
>>> as
>>>>> this name is already in use as a unique identifier for another  player. If 
>>> teucer
>>>>> were to have the name "Murphy", that would violate  the first paragraph of 
>>> Rule
>>>>> 2/0, "All game entities must have  uniquely identifying names", which I 
>>> interpret
>>>>> to mean that all  identifying names held by a player [[basically all names 
>>> that
>>>>> aren't  titles]].
>>>> 
>>>> I appeal the above judgement. Arguments: While the  judge is correct
>>>> that "All game entities must have uniquely-identifying  names", and
>>>> this unambiguously means all identifying names held by  players must be
>>>> unique, the fact that something MUST happen does *not*  mean that it
>>>> does - merely that players who MUST do something are in  violation of
>>>> the rule in question. (See Rule 14.) Ergo, the MUST clause  in Rule 2
>>>> does not block me from becoming a player with the relevant  name; it
>>>> merely means that the other Murphy is breaking Rule 2. (I do  have to
>>>> specify a unique name when joining, but as I in fact specified  four of
>>>> them I should be good.)
>>>> 
>>>> - teucer
> 
> 
> Correct, that answer is invalid.
> 
> I amend the Oracle's report for nweek 173 to state, in addition to the information previously given, that CFI 123/0A1 is awaiting judgement by the Appeals Court Judge 0x44.
> 
>                         
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss