Thanks. I think that makes sense, and it certainly makes CFJ 3726 more
interesting. I'll assume you're right unless I hear more about it.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 01:13, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Y’all, I think you’re overthinking this. “authorize” isn’t necessarily a
> synonym for “enable”. According to Google, the definition is “give official
> permission for or approval to”. I think telling someone they’re required to
> do something as part of their job counts as “authorization” to do it
> according to the common language meaning of the word authorize.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:05 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting catch!  Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST
> > implies CAN?  I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what
> > it might say:
> >
> > There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties
> > except by imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT
> > impose the Cold Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL
> > way for the Referee to perform eir duties.
> >
> > A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir
> > mandatory obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result
> > runs contrary to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very
> > creation of the Office of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory
> > assume that office and discharge its responsibilities. Unless the Referee
> > CAN impose the Cold Hand when warranted, then there is no way for a player
> > to assume the office of Referee and discharge its duties as required by
> > rule.
> >
> > MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could
> > pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do
> > that but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not
> > make the pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a
> > method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the
> > first place). And that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions
> > underlying the Rules, since the Rules presuppose that players may make
> > pledges they can’t satisfy.
> >
> > The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the
> > Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be
> > performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no
> > *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one
> > described above.  So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST
> > probably does not imply CAN...
> >
> > > On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't
> > > know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice.
> > >
> > > R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN.
> > >
> > > R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I
> > > don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something?
> >

Reply via email to