On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 00:34 -0400, omd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:12 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, I'm Bucky. I'm here to (again) attempt to deliver the following > > message: > > > > If I have not already done so, I explicitly initiate an inquiry case > on the statement "Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make > an unqualified public statement that is identical to this statement." > > > > I am aware of CfJ 1887, which says that stating the liar paradox > would violate Rule 2215. Since this statement is similar in nature to > the liar paradox, its truth follows directly from CfJ 1887. This does > not, however, mean that it isn't a paradox. > > I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but if your CFJ is judged > UNDECIDABLE, IMO it's likely either "arising from that case itself" or > not "on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action" (since, > although the statement is about legality, it is not precisely on > whether the action is legal), so you wouldn't get a win. > > But welcome to Agora! Since I think it would be a fine tradition to > NoV new players, although I can rarely find any cause to, here's one: > Bucky violated Power-3 Rule 2170 by selecting the confusing nickname > "John Smith". (You should probably contest this.)
I contest this. The relevant clause in rule 2170 cannot be violated by non-players. -- ais523
