============================== CFJ 2238 ==============================
When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must
unambiguously specify the parameters.
Called by omd: 22 Oct 2008 20:39:26 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 27 Oct 2008 07:18:26 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble: 04 Nov 2008 19:33:49 GMT
That is, if the Rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean by
announcement", must I unambiguously specify which player, or merely
identify the player?
R478 (in part):
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
See also CFJ 2065.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
I judge TRUE. When taking an action, the parameters must be
specified in a way that is unambiguous. However, the caller's example
does not seem to rely on the statement, so I'll clarify.
> That is, if the Rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean by
> announcement", must I unambiguously specify which player, or merely
> identify the player?
In this case, any announcement that "identifies the player",
regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously
specifies em; that the meaning of "identify". I statement of the form
"I award a Bean to Wooble" is equivalent to "I award a Bean to the
player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" if the statement is
made after this judgment is submitted; either one would successfully
award a Bean to me.
In CFJ 2065, the specification was ambiguous at the time the message
of intent was sent because it referred to events that hadn't yet taken
place and which couldn't be predicted in advance. When announcing
intent to perform a dependent action, one must unambiguously identify
the parameters of the action that will be taken dependently in the
future, and they must be unambiguous at the time intent is announced.
Thus, if the rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean without
objection", a statement by comex of "I intend, without objection, to
award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238"
would allow em to award me a bean without objection if e made the
statement after this judgment is submitted, but would not allow em to
award me a bean if e made that announcement earlier than the
submission of this judgment.
Similarly, in CFJ 1334, the problem was an issue of ambiguity,
although in that case the ambiguity was absolute, and not dependent on
time. In that case root announced eir intent to "select a different
Bank Currency", giving neither a specification by name nor any sort of
attempt to unambiguously identify a currency. This failed because the
intent was ambiguous, as would an action-by-announcement of "I hereby
select a different Bank Currency" with no attempt to announce which
currency it was. Had e instead announced eir intent to select the Bank
Currency e had the most of at the time e posted the intent, this would
succeed if and only if e held more of one currency than of any of the
others. A specification of this form could be unambiguous, and thus
legal, even if at the time the intent was posted it was unclear to
which currency this referred due to slow recordkeeping or pending CFJs
that would potentially correct eir platonic holdings of each currency.
For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to
prevent cascading of