============================= CFJ 3477 =============================
Assuming that Quazie is a player, e has, within the past week,
exceeded the Income Cap.
Called by Aris: 22 Apr 2017
Assigned to o: 28 Apr 2017
Judged TRUE by o: 29 Apr 2017
"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.
First, if Quazie is ultimately determined not to be a player, then this
sentence is vacuously true.
If Quazie is ultimately determined to have been a player at the time,
then the sentence is still true, as outlined below.
The phrase "the past week" should be understood as the seven Agoran
days ending 22 Apr 2017. During this period, Quazie (whose status as a
player was unknown at that time) posted the following message:
Assuming I am a player:
I flip my budget switch in all Open charters to their highest
"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.
Interpreting Quazie's "allowable" as "possible" is the only
interpretation of eir sentence which leads to a single, definite
outcome for the game. Interpreting "allowable" as "permissible" would,
indeed, cap Quazie's speculative Expenditure at 100, as that is the
highest value which does not warrant censure in the rules. However,
there are a very large number of ways to assign Budget to specific
Organizations so as to remain under that limit.
Where a sentence, read one way, leads to a single and definite outcome,
and read another way, leads to ambiguity, it would be foolish to assume
the ambiguous reading without further indication from the author that
the ambiguous reading is the desired one or that the definite reading
is in some way accidental. Forcing players to adopt extremely precise
syntax, lest their clear intentions fail because of technicalities,
would bring the game to a halt in short order.
As the single definite outcome possible from Quazie's statement is
that, if Quazie is a player, then Quazie flipped each of eir Budget
switches to the highest possible value for the corresponding
Organization, eir Expenditure assuredly exceeded the Income Cap of 100.
Thus, the statement is true.
While I did not consider the following gratuitous argument, it concurs
with this conclusion.
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.