On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ============================== CFJ 2238 ============================== > > When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must > unambiguously specify the parameters.
I proto-judge TRUE. When taking an action, the parameters must be specified in a way that is unambiguous. However, the caller's example does not seem to rely on the statement, so I'll clarify. > That is, if the Rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean by > announcement", must I unambiguously specify which player, or merely > identify the player? In this case, any announcement that "identifies the player", regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously specifies em; that the meaning of "identify". I statement of the form "I award a Bean to Wooble" is equivalent to "I award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" if the statement is made after this judgment is submitted; either one would successfully award a Bean to me. In CFJ 2065, the specification was ambiguous at the time the message of intent was sent because it referred to events that hadn't yet taken place and which couldn't be predicted in advance. When announcing intent to perform a dependent action, one must unambiguously identify the parameters of the action that will be taken dependently in the future, and they must be unambiguous at the time intent is announced. Thus, if the rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean without objection", a statement by comex of "I intend, without objection, to award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" would allow em to award me a bean without objection if e made the statement after this judgment is submitted, but would not allow em to award me a bean if e made that announcement earlier than the submission of this judgment. Similarly, in CFJ 1334, the problem was an issue of ambiguity, although in that case the ambiguity was absolute, and not dependent on time. In that case root announced eir intent to "select a different Bank Currency", giving neither a specification by name nor any sort of attempt to unambiguously identify a currency. This failed because the intent was ambiguous, as would an action-by-announcement of "I hereby select a different Bank Currency" with no attempt to announce which currency it was. Had e instead announced eir intent to select the Bank Currency e had the most of at the time e posted the intent, this would succeed if and only if e held more of one currency than of any of the others. A specification of this form could be unambiguous, and thus legal, even if at the time the intent was posted it was unclear to which currency this referred due to slow recordkeeping or pending CFJs that would potentially correct eir platonic holdings of each currency. For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to prevent cascading of unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
