On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:02 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > The below CFJ is 4021. I assign it to G.. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4021 > > =============================== CFJ 4021 =============================== > > Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. > > ========================================================================== >
Judgment in CFJ 4021: [For future reference, "TRUE" means that snail obtained the Hot Potato due to reach, and then it was transferred to Yachay due to being wielded by snail.] The rule paragraph in question is written reasonably cleanly and concisely. The fact that "reached first" is missing an object (a specified stone) leads the reader to look for context, and even a moron in a hurry (like the judge of this case) could see that the context is supplied by the preceding sentence - as the "tie" clearly refers to the "highest" in the previous sentence, the "reached first" clearly, and in nearly-parallel construction, applies to the reaches "in the previous week" in that same sentence. No amount of Agoran grammatic sophistry can take away from the plain and obvious common-sense intended meaning in that paragraph; further, it is not in the best interests of the game to force the rules-writers to constantly expand the level of rules-overspecification to defend against motivated readings, in situations where such plain and obvious contextual usage suffice. This judge finds FALSE. -G.
