On Nov 28, 2007 1:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The board hereby overrules to UNDETERMINED. The various gratuitous arguments > center around whether we can infer noun vs. verb phrases in the nonsense > statement. But trivially, the rules distinguish "actions" from "inactions" > (eg. R101viii). The nonsense phrase could easily mean to "not act" as well > as to act, and keep the same grammar. Thus this phrase could be an inaction > rather than an action. This argument shows that even if we accept that it's > a verb phrase (which we don't necessarily accept), it is UNDETERMINED if it is > about an action.
I'm not comfortable with this. We know that the nonsense phrase means neither "to act" nor "to not act". This leads to a judgment of FALSE, not UNDETERMINED. Additionally, wouldn't a finding of UNDETERMINED cause a split in the gamestate around the question of whether or not comex wins? I'm not ipso facto opposed to a judgement that leads to a win, but I am opposed to one that leads to a split. There would still be the question of whether, if "to nkep..." is an action, it constitutes a prior or hypothetical action as now required by R2110; however, a precedent of UNDETERMINED in this case would support a finding of UNDETERMINED in the question of hypothesis as well. -root
