Ed Murphy wrote: >========================= Criminal Case 2048 ========================= > ehird violated Rule 2149 by saying that e joins. ... >Judge Taral's Arguments: > >As much as I appreciate Goethe's sentiment about the deception, the >registration attempt is an action, and precedent holds that it is >therefore merely ineffective. UNIMPUNGED.
With 2 support I intend to appeal Taral's verdict in CFJ 2048. The judge has not referred to the alleged precedent that would make a failing speech act merely ineffective rather than untruthful, and I think e is mistaken in saying that there is one. On a simple analysis, ehird made the statement "I join.", but e did not join (at that time), so eir statement that e was joining was a false one. It does not lose its statementhood or falsity merely by virtue of the fact that the rules make similar statements in some circumstances trigger game state changes that make those statements true. -zefram
