On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote: > > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to > >find the CFJ false. > I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point > that that additional > argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it serves > Agora better Good to > not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear > opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. > > 天火狐
Oh, yes... I should have added that I generally agree with your problems with using R1698 as a primary reason. Especially as CFJs don't generally change the gamestate, they just tell us what the gamestate actually is. So if we used R1698 as a basis (saying "yes, everything's ambiguous, but admitting that would ossify the game") then what we'd *really* have to conclude is "that means the rule change, however many years ago, that stated ambiguous actions fail, would have ossified the game - so that's cancelled and didn't occur." So we have to go back and recalculate everything from that point (including re-visiting every single ambiguous action we've ever discarded since then)!!
