> 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.
But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the actual words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys what I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't know 4x4. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > -- >From R. Lee
