Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
H. Peekee, you are hereby informed that criminal cases 1715-1716 have
been initiated in which you are the defendant, and invited to rebut
the arguments for your guilt. The pre-trial phases end one week from
this message.
============================== CFJ 1715 ==============================
Type: criminal case
Defendant: Peekee
Charge: violating Rule 754 by sending communication with little regularity
Initiator: comex
Firstly I am not sure what aspect of my message is offending here. I
first thought is was because the message was sent in MIME format with
spaces in the plain text part and a table in the HTML part. However,
Rule 754 deals with ambiguity of individual words, terms and phrases.
It mentions nothing on transition, formatting, encoding or even spacing.
I am left wondering what part of Rule 754 I "violated":
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.
I can not see any abnormal words or phrases in my message that would
meet this clause.
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that
meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly
defined by the rules.
My message does not attempt to redefine any term defined by the rules.
Nor does it even to use a term defined by the rules in another
inappropriate context.
(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
Again I can not see how these are relevant to my message. The only
other part of the rule that could be of any consequence here is.
"Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function
of any nomic..."
This is a statement that my message does not directly contradict.
Even if one of the above was relevant to the message the only way I
can see that I could "violate" a rule is through the definitions in
rule 2152. However rule 754 contain no of the capitalized terms MUST
NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED, MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED,
MANDATORY.
============================== CFJ 1716 ==============================
Type: criminal case
Defendant: Peekee
Charge: violating Rule 2149 by deliberately or recklessly making the
false statement "maybe"
Initiator: comex
Rule 2149/1 (Power=1)
Truthfulness
Players SHALL NOT deliberately or recklessly make false
statements in any public message. Merely quoting a false
statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this
rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier
attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for
the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is
what is significant.
1) "maybe" was not sent to a public forum.
2) "maybe" by itself can not be evaluated to a be false.
3) Assuming its context comes into play the statement "maybe I am
Peekee who was a player intermittently up to 2004" is true not false.
I would evaluate "mabye P" as follows:
"It might be the case that P"
"Either P or not P"
The last statement is true assuming the logical rule of the excluded middle.
--
Peekee
