Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
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
 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  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  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?
> >


Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?

2019-06-01 Thread Aris Merchant
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  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  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?
>


Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?

2019-06-01 Thread D. Margaux
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  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?