On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discussed this in an earlier post. A total disclaimer ("Any statements
> made in this message might be false.") certainly should disqualify a
> statement from operating as an action, because it means that the action
> hasn't actually been announced. Likewise, such a disclaimer would
> deprive an official report of validity, so that it wouldn't satisfy the
> obligation to publish.
>
> A qualified disclaimer is a different matter. "This attempted action
> might fail.", for example, indicates that the action statement might
> be false due to impossibility of the action, but does not disclaim
> any other reason for it to be false. Combining it logically with the
> action statement, it is effectively a synonym for the qualifier "If
> it is possible to do so,". We do allow these, and they mean that the
> action occurs if it is possible. I think the qualifier is better style
> than the disclaimer.
Disclaimer: All statements in this message that are not actions may or
may not be true. All attempted actions in this actions may fail if
they are impossible.
Style aside, this is just a generalized version of the exact same
thing, although reports are somewhat different. As I see it, your
opinion is that
1) Publicly resolvable conditionals are generally valid in statements
of action. (TRUE -> I do X implies I do X)
2) Whether an action is successful is publicly resolvable.
3) Therefore, it is possible to state 'If possible, I do X', with this
being effective if X is possible but not a lie if X is not.
Although (1) is correct by CFJs 1214-15, there are more recent cases
that may contradict this, specifically CFJ 1302 if the performer of
the action does not know if it will succeed
(2) is often false. In fact, by CFJ 1307, even publicly-reported-on
information may not be sufficient for a publicly resolvable condition.
The game custom that we allow the conditional even in a case of
ambiguity is murky at best and not supported by the rules.
Therefore, I think (3) is impossible in many circumstances. However,
even if it were possible, the qualified disclaimers you envision are
easily replaceable with a standard broad one. Therefore, there is not
really that much gain in allowing it. I would prefer if it were made
completely impossible by legislating that attempts at actions must be
unconditionally expressed, although criminal cases involving failed
actions SHOULD be (very?) lightly sentenced.
