Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:07 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> > Pavitra wrote: >> >> I CFJ on the statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister." >> > I think the CFJ is a pretty clear TRUE, because I think Warrigal didn't > cause emself to fail to be a player when e attempted to deregister via > rule 101. This is a reasonable line of argument, but I personally disagree. R101 is fairly powerful.
> I also think that if eir message is treated as an implied > deregistration under rule 869, then e CANNOT reregister and the CFJ is a > clear TRUE, not UNDECIDABLE. What? That doesn't follow. If e CANNOT reregister, e isn't and can't become a player, and hence CANNOT deregister, thus making the CFJ FALSE. But it comes to the same thing, paradox-wise. Oh well. > It is not unknown for a rule to say > something is generally possible, and then later on state circumstances > in which it isn't. The word "generally" was forgotten in rule 869 in the > third paragraph, but the fifth paragraph is relatively clearly meant to > take precedence over the third; game custom and common sense both imply > this, past judgements imply this (judge's arguments on CFJ 2271), and > the best interests of the game do not give a conclusive judgement either > way. Therefore, by rule 217, I think that if Warrigal /did/ recently > deregister, the CFJ should be FALSE. I seriously doubt that UNDECIDABLE > is the correct outcome. I missed R217. You're probably right. Still, I'm going to leave the CFJ standing, because I think it should be an interesting precedent: R217 determines precedence where 1482 and 1030 fail. Pavitra.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
