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? > >