Arguments:
at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You didn’t
say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that
you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those cards”
with “4 sets of 4”.
As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this
service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee,
and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.
this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
harmful to gameplay.
It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at
all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
(You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying the
action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more
wiggle room for ambiguity.)
