On Saturday 08 November 2008 09:33:21 pm comex wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Pavitra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When interpreting and applying the Rules as a whole in every
> > context prior to this case, we have always (as far as I know)
> > treated them as implicitly ANDed; for example, we have never held
> > that persons can choose to be bound only by an arbitrary subset
> > of the Rules.
>
> Then the CFJ is trivially FALSE as there are many statements in the
> Rules that are not true-- pure AND does not take into account
> precedence. Several statements in the Rules (like most of Rule
> 2213), in fact, are unilaterally false, so higher-powered Rules
> cannot be taken as some sort of clarification of lower-powered
> ones. Anyway, the Statement of this case is sufficiently unclear
> (especially considering that Rules != statements) that I'd say it
> doesn't exist.
Well, right, and precedence. What I meant was that we should interpret
the Rules as we always have in regards to ands and precedences. This
common-sense guideline provides the conjunctions and prepositions
necessary to coagulate the Ruleset into a single assertion. The
authority of the Rules makes that collective assertion ("the game
works like such-and-such") definitionally true.
Let us consider a simplified version of the question, for comparison.
Suppose the CFJ were on a single rule, which read "Fnords are a
currency. Any player CAN create a fnord by announcement."; suppose
further that this rule were not overridden by any other. I argue that
such a CFJ would be TRUE, since fnords would indeed be a currency,
and it would be POSSIBLE for any player to create a fnord by
announcement.
Do you disagree with the simplified case, or with the way I'm scaling
it up to the entire Ruleset?
