On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Because I'm the Crown Prince... I pay a fee to move the player immediately >> above me on the list of succession down one place on the list of succession. >> This fee should be 0. > > Er, actually, the rebellion question makes Yally's position uncertain. > I CFJ on the following statement, barring Yally: > > If Yally was not the Crown Prince at the time e made the announcement > quoted in Evidence, eir attempted action did not occur. > > Arguments: > Is the "Because..." clause a conditional, or not? > > Evidence: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Because I'm the Crown Prince... I pay a fee to move the player >> immediately above me on the list of succession down one place on >> the list of succession. This fee should be 0.
Gratuitous arguments: The judge should consider whether "This fee should be 0." affects the required announcement that there is a fee in the case where Yally was not the Crown Prince. My reading is that this wording makes it more likely that the move succeeded regardless of eir initial position; had e intended to move the player above em iff the fee was 0, e could have made the move by announcement or specified that e was definitely playing a fee of 0, rather than speculating that the fee "should be" 0.
