========================= Criminal Case 3125 =========================
scshunt broke rule 2338 by cashing a promise with insufficient
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by ais523: 13 Nov 2011 22:59:49 GMT
Defendant scshunt informed: 13 Nov 2011 22:59:49 GMT
Assigned to omd: 18 Nov 2011 23:34:26 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by omd: 19 Nov 2011 00:04:12 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
First, I dispute the notion that there is insufficient referent. The
message is generated via a promise. If 'this promise' has sufficient
referent within the first attempt to cash it, then there is no reason
to believe that that referent would change with multiple recursive
applications of the promise. Moreover, the analogy to rules and
proposals is flawed, as would the following proposal not succeed?
Enact a new power-4 rule entitled "Superpowers" reading
This proposal CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
Simultaneously enact two new rules, reading 'Tweedledee' and
While the referent to 'this proposal' has no meaning outside the
context of the application of the proposal, it certainly does for the
duration of the proposal. Applying the common-sense interpretation per
R217, this would succeed. Likewise, I argue that the body of the
promise, by referring to 'this promise', provides itself with
sufficient context to apply correctly.
Judge omd's Arguments:
"This promise" and similar constructions, while awkward considering
how promises work, are well precedented:
(omd) "I publicly congratulate the casher for eir judgement."
(G.) "I transfer 6 points to the casher of this promise."
(scshunt) "I retract any votes on the Proposal N and vote to ENDORSE
the player cashing this promise."
(scshunt) "I transfer 5 points to the cashier."
Since there is an obvious and unambiguous referent, I see no reason to
forbid the term. NOT GUILTY.