============================== CFJ 3285 ==============================
I own a Max Schutz card.
Called by ais523: 05 Nov 2012 05:13:12 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 11 Nov 2012 19:11:41 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 11 Nov 2012 19:50:17 GMT
The intent of the message is clear, so the main question is
whether it's equivalent to the sequence of actions necessary to fulfil
that intent (transferring a card, transferring a promise from the tree,
cashing the promise). For an argument for FALSE, see CFJ 2887, although
the circumstances are not exactly the same. On the other hand, we allow
small deviations from being perfectly explicit all the time. So where
exactly is the line drawn?
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 00:08 -0500, Max Schutz wrote:
> ok let's try this one more time I cash this promise by accepting a
> copy of an ais523 in exchange for a max schutz card
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 00:01 -0500, Max Schutz wrote:
> > alright providing i understand this correctly I cash the
> promise bearing in
> > mind that i do not have a copy of the ais523 card if this is
> > please let me know as i am a new player
> It's incorrect both because you sent it to the wrong mailing
> list and
> because you didn't give me a card in return earlier in the
> same message.
the promise I created earlier
today (which is currently unnamed until Horton gets around to giving it
Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:
I reported this as effective, as the intent is
clear and unambiguous.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
The intended interpretation is the only one that could render the
message reasonably effective (apart from possibly some variation in the
order of operations, but not substantively changing the resulting
gamestate). Contrast the situation in CFJ 2887, in which the purported
action was "With Notice, I intend to win" and there were multiple
methods to win; even though it was clear which of those methods e
intended to use, this was judged insufficiently specific.