Gratuitous Argument The Pledge rule states that "N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise". But it doesn't say what N is when the pledge _does_ explicitly state otherwise. Therefore, N is indeterminate and there is no explicit Class for this crime, so it defaults to a base value of 2.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 01:25 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The > > investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a > > fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking." > > Gratuitous arguments: the rule in question says "CAN do so by…", i.e. > it's specifying a mechanism via which the action can be taken. Using > the mechanism, therefore, would allow the fine to be levied. In this > situation, the mechanism is mathematically impossible to use, and thus > the action can't actually be taken, but if the mechanism were somehow > used the action would succeed. > > This is a similar situation to "CAN by announcement" in cases where the > entity who CAN perform the action can't actually send messages to a > mailing list (e.g. in the past, we've had players who were legal > fictions and thus unable to use email). > > Whether the CFJ should be judged as TRUE or FALSE is an interesting > matter of semantics. I think I would argue that the action CAN be > performed, i.e. attempts to perform it are successful; however, the > action cannot (lowercase) be performed, because an attempt to perform > it cannot be made. Thus, the CFJ is TRUE. > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From V.J. Rada
