2009/9/5 Charles Walker <[email protected]>: > I initiate a CFJ on the following statement, setting its II to 2: > > * The proposals FRC Recognition and No Vacancy v.2 are both Distributable. > > Arguments: > > The relevant text from R2259 (Hand Limits), which is quoted fully in > the evidence below, states that: > > When any other entity is audited X random cards that entity > owns are destroyed, where X equals the number of card that > entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0).. > > This means that when I self-audited, 10 Cards in my possession were > destroyed, but there is no way to find out exactly which ones were > destroyed. Therefore I argue for a judgement of UNDETERMINED. > > Also, I am disregarding Tiger's messages as they have no authority on > the matter (except if they count as a self-ratifying report, in which > case this CFJ probably counts as a doubt on the document). > Gratuitous (for both cases, maybe they should be linked): [email protected] has been used in the past when random results were needed, though before this situation it has always been a recordkeepor with some authority who has said "I destroy these assets, see the dice results for proof that they are randomly chosen". In this situation there is noone to perform the destructions as it happens platonically, so I say that the first message from an accepted source of randomness (here [email protected]) should count as determining what happened.
-- -Tiger
