============================== CFJ 2366 ==============================
Rule 2238's Power is over 9000.
Called by omd: 03 Feb 2009 16:18:07 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 10 Feb 2009 06:03:44 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble: 10 Feb 2009 17:17:03 GMT
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 11:12 -0500, comex wrote:
>> I intend, with support, to cause Rule 1728 to amend Rule 2141 by replacing:
> I support.
>> I intend, with support, to cause Rule 1728 to change the power of Rule
>> 2238 to 9001.
> I support.
With support, I cause Rule 1728 to amend Rule 2141 by replacing:
Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is
not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.
It is not possible for a rule to have a power below one.
With support, I cause Rule 1728 to change the power of Rule 2238 to 9001.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
I judge FALSE, accepting Goethe's arguments, which are reproduced
below as they don't seem to be included in the case history:
>> The logic in favour is the CAN in the first sentence of rule 1728:
>> A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a
>> dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the
>> following are true:
> Thanks, I was wondering why dependent actions and this isn't wholly
> implausible. However, I believe this runs afoul of the following from
> a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the
> action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N
> is 1 if not otherwise specified)
> The problem is, that R1728(a) requires the rules as a whole to authorize
> the performer to perform the action, and doesn't in itself "add" to that
> explicit authority (if it did "add" it would be self-referentially
> meaningless). So R2238 authorizes the dependent action, but it
> conflicts with R2140, which forbids it (note that authorization must be
> explicit; prohibition need not be - that tilt towards prohibition is a
> "for the good of the game" argument). Therefore the net sum of "the
> rules" is that R2140 beats out R2238 due to power, and the action isn't
> authorized by the rules, so the test of R1728(a) fails.
> I'm sure there have been other cases where one rule authorizes a
> dependent action but another higher-power rule forbids it, and it's
> that straightforward conflict that matters; R1728 doesn't "add" any
> authority as a power-3 rule if the test from (a) isn't met.