On 4/9/23 15:40, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
CFJ, barring nix: Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone.
Gratuitous Arguments:
Gratuitous Arguments:
First, the text itself is as follows:
At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player
with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in
the previous week is transferred to em. In a tie, the stone
specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to
em. When a player receives a stone in this way, eir Base Rockiness
is set to 0.
The immediately relevant sentence is "In a tie, the stone specified by
the tied player who reached first is transferred to em." "In a tie"
specifies a context, and as an adverbial phrase can be moved around.
It seems that snail is interpretting it as "The stone specified by the
tied player who reached first is transferred to em in a tie."
It can also be read as "The stone specified by the tied player who
reached first in a tie is transferred to em."
Now, I'll grant that each reading is equally likely if we have no
context. The first sentence of the paragraph provides the context of a
weekly reach, which favors the second reading.
However, even if we ignore that context, we have two equally textually
supported readings. It'd then come down to our Four Factors. There's no
precedent or previous gameplay that disagrees with either reading.
There's a clear "best interest of the game" to make it play as it is
intended, and not give a player a permanent advantage. "Common sense"
also seems to favor the reading that is more fair.
Thus, while both readings might be plausible, only one is supportable by
our judicial tradition.
--
nix
Collector, Herald
