On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 29 May 2008 12:41:27 Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> Your ability to create a paradoxical contract without the >> support of a majority of players which makes information required to >> judge a case logically impossible for the judge to ascertain isn't the >> same as an ability to trick the other players into voting for a series >> of rules changes that create a paradox. > > But we the players did vote into rule the entire body of contract law. >
Well, that's true. Of course, the point of my message started out being that saying that the uncertainty in this particular case is an uncertainty in how to interpret the rules simply because a similar situation could, theoretically, exist in the rules and then the uncertainty in that case wouldn't be eligible for an UNDETERMINED ruling doesn't hold water. In the hypothetical case, there's an actual uncertainty in how to apply the rules; in the current case the lack of information is the product of a non-rules-defined quantity. The judge will be able to say with certainty how the rules should be applied given any particular value of gnarliness for each member of the contract, e just won't have enough information to actually make a judgment.
