On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With 2 support I intend to appeal Taral's verdict in CFJ 2048. > The judge has not referred to the alleged precedent that would make > a failing speech act merely ineffective rather than untruthful, and I > think e is mistaken in saying that there is one. On a simple analysis, > ehird made the statement "I join.", but e did not join (at that time), > so eir statement that e was joining was a false one. It does not lose > its statementhood or falsity merely by virtue of the fact that the rules > make similar statements in some circumstances trigger game state changes > that make those statements true.
The truth or falsity of the statement itself is irrelevant. What Rule 2149 asks is about the accused's *belief* in the truth of eir statement. Even if we were to assign truth values to actions (an interpretation that I believe to be incorrect), one would still be required to show that the accused did not believe eir statement to be true. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
