Reading it initially, I was a bit confused by how the math worked out and I do think it could have been sufficiently ambiguous to cause it to fail.
> On Jul 2, 2020, at 08:34, Becca Lee via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > >> >> 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
