On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > scshunt invokes judgement on two statements: > > > I invoke judgement on whether Rule 304 had the power to repeal itself > > without that rule change being voted on. I think that all rule changes > > must be voted on and cannot occur automatically. > > and > > > I invoke judgement on whether or not Goethe's transfers succeeded. > > By rule 214, I must select myself as Judge for both. > > Gratuitous (omd): > > > IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having > > either bug. > > I am, in fact, kind of in a hurry. So I will not deliver a legal judgement on > either now. By rule 215, I have 24 hours.
My arguments: For the first group of transfers: "Transfer" is not the same as "give". It implies conveyance, but there are three parties involved: the giver, the recipient, and the courier. The rule says the courier and the recipient must be different. There is no explicit reason to suppose that the giver and the courier need be the same. Also, while points are indeed "regulated", this regulation extends to allowing transfers, and the rules don't *forbid* the courier from specifying another source for the transfer, so R116 might generally allow it. For my final transfer: This is testing whether "points", by common sense &tc., are considered 'physical things' (restricted to non-negative integers), or whether they represent position on a number line (and can go negative). "Points" are used in both manners in many games so there's no great set of precedents or definitions to say whether going negative is possible. (This does not test possible fractional quantities, maybe the judge can also answer whether points are integral, rational, real, complex, or what, given the current rules). ok, that's it, I'm in a hurry...
