just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > I offer this proto for comment. > > *** > > Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be > entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule > 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me > to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. > > For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be > legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I accept the > reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to > Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] > > There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, INSUFFICIENT, > and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement of IRRELEVANT > because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question about the nature > of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a judgement of > INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and arguement. > > That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate judgements. > PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically undecidable; DISMISS is > appropriate if it is undecidable for another reason. > > In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is > appropriate. > > First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." In > my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or > IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an > undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or > DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than > PARADOXICAL. > > This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote > 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it > a judgement of FALSE. > > The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and > therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore > DISMISS). > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the > case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. > > Judged PARADOXICAL. > > ----- > [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL > way to resolve this. > > [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: > > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. > > > > Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, > enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does > not limit its performance. > > > > The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a > dictionary to prove such things. > > > > To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which > might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". > > > >> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). > Either > >> - Breathing is a regulated action, or > >> - The contract does not prohibit breathing. > >> Jason Cobb > >>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. > >>> > >>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. > >>> > >>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an > unregulated action. > >>> > >>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion > that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule > 2152. > >>> > >>> There really is no way out of this, is there? > >>> > >>>>> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>>>> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, > assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN perform > an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform. > >>>> > >>>> From the dictionary I get: > >>>> > >>>> Proscribe - > >>>> forbid, especially by law. > >>>> synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, > veto, > >>>> make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo > >>>> "gambling was proscribed" > >>>> > >>>> Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for > SHALL > >>>> NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to > me. > > > > -- > > Trigon > -- >From R. Lee
