> > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total. > > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards. > > > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into > products > > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
"those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch had, rather than any other group of cards. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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.) > -- >From R. Lee
