the fact that you were mathematically confused by "4 sets of 4" doesn't really mean that it's confusing
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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 > -- >From R. Lee
