On Jan 7, 2008 9:35 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 07 January 2008 19:30:58 Iammars wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2008 9:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Monday 07 January 2008 19:19:16 Iammars wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2008 7:29 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Monday 07 January 2008 17:24:09 Ian Kelly wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 7, 2008 5:15 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > My apologies. Not a criminal case, so I can't appeal it > directly. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > support this intent to appeal. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand Iammars' somewhat laconic arguments correctly, e > is > > > > > > pointing out that R2159 defines the only mechanism for > initiating a > > > > > > protective decree, and so a protective decree categorically > cannot > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > submitted to Steve Wallace whether e is a nomic or not. > Submitting > > > > > > one would thus violate R2159 in the sense that R2159 declares it > > > > > > impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you really want a ruling on the matter that you intended, > > > > > > whether it is legal to *claim* something to be a protective > decree > > > > > > to Steve Wallace, then I suggest you create a new case with a > > > > > > better-worded statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > -root > > > > > > > > > > I submit the following CFJ: > > > > > "It is a violation of rule 2159 to falsely claim that something is > a > > > > > protective decree to Steve Wallace (the biological person, not > > > > > necessarily the player)." > > > > > > > > That would still be the same argument. R2159 says that protective > > > > > > decrees > > > > > > > can only be submitted to protectorates. In order for a protective > > > > decree > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be sent to Steve Wallace, he would have to be a protectorate first. > > > > I would reccomend calling judgement on whether Steve Wallace can be > a > > > > protectorate. > > > > > > But R2159 says: > > > All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, > > > that a document is a protective decree. > > > That is what I'm testing. The rule does not specify whether that's > > > falsely claiming to a *protectorate* that a document is a protective > > > decree, so such > > > an argument is pointless. > > > > > > So then, test it on a nomic, not Steve Wallace. > > > > Unless you want to test whether or not Steve Wallace is a nomic. > > > I explicitly want to test whether or not Steve Wallace is a nomic in this > really round-about method. > > Surely that's obvious by my first arguments for this drawn-out case? >
Yeah, I figured that. But nowhere in the rules does it define what is a nomic, so you're better off just CFJ'ing "Steve Wallace is a nomic." -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
