Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Josh T]

The issue here as I see it is predicate level: there is a stage-level
interpretation and an individual-level interpretation. The individual-level
interpretation is that the adjective applies to the modified noun
intrinsically, that is, "the responsible people" at the individual-level
refers to people who are generally responsible. On the other hand, the
stage-level interpretation has a more holistic sense of the situation, with
a focus on the now: the stage-level interpretation of the aforementioned
statement, usually written as "the people responsible", using a
postpositive adjective, is generally interpreted as something like "the
people responsible for the situation at hand". Provided that allowable is
acceptable as a postpositive adjective, it seems reasonable to cast the
prepositive adjective statement as taking on the individual-level meaning,
which would agree with the interpretation of Quazie exceeding the Income
Cap.

天火狐

On 28 April 2017 at 19:47, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of
> “allowable” or a related term, I’m all ears.
>
> I got nothing.
>
> Dictionary seems to suggest either works.
>
> I think it's straight up "best interests of the game" territory here.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of “allowable” 
> or a related term, I’m all ears.

I got nothing.

Dictionary seems to suggest either works.

I think it's straight up "best interests of the game" territory here.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Owen Jacobson]

If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of “allowable” or 
a related term, I’m all ears.

-o

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3477
> 
> =  CFJ 3477  =
> 
>  Assuming that Quazie is a player, e has, within the past week,
>  exceeded the Income Cap.
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller:  Aris
> 
> Judge:   o
> Judgement:
> 
> ==
> 
> History:
> 
> Called by Aris:  22 Apr 2017
> Assigned to o:   as of this message
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller's Arguments:
> 
> "Allowable" could mean either "possible" or "permissible". If it's the
> later, e has not exceeded the Cap, as the highest permissible value is
> the highest value e could not be punished for. Additionally, if the
> action is ambiguous between the two (or otherwise ambiguous) then it
> is insufficiently clear to be valid.
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller's Evidence:
> 
> 
> ==



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Ha - I like this assignment, as I know o's feelings on this, given the 
> actions e took.  It will be interesting to see if e reconsiders, or if we, 
> as agora, disagree with whatever decision e makes.

I haven't been paying attention to what e's assumed specifically, but
I *did* assign it on the grounds that e was probably fairly interested :).

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Quazie]

Ha - I like this assignment, as I know o's feelings on this, given the
actions e took.  It will be interesting to see if e reconsiders, or if we,
as agora, disagree with whatever decision e makes.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3477
>
> =  CFJ 3477  =
>
>   Assuming that Quazie is a player, e has, within the past week,
>   exceeded the Income Cap.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:  Aris
>
> Judge:   o
> Judgement:
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Aris:  22 Apr 2017
> Assigned to o:   as of this message
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> "Allowable" could mean either "possible" or "permissible". If it's the
> later, e has not exceeded the Cap, as the highest permissible value is
> the highest value e could not be punished for. Additionally, if the
> action is ambiguous between the two (or otherwise ambiguous) then it
> is insufficiently clear to be valid.
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
>
> ==
>
>