On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what Taral claims. The action having received two support, I hereby appeal CFJ 2048. -root
