On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:25 -0400, ihope wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Elliott Hird >>> I initiate an equity case regarding the pledge regarding Nethack >>> mentioned in the above thread (parties: ihope). By eir own admission >>> ihope has not ascended the game and is not performing the action of >>> ascending the game at this moment. >> >> Evidence: In the game in question, I have fatally died, meaning it is >> now impossible for me to ascend. Therefore, I would be GUILTY, if this >> were a criminal case rather than an equity case. > Arguments: Although 'ascend' has a specific meaning in relation to > Nethack, it also has a standard English-language meaning of "go > upwards", which would have been entirely possible for ihope's character > (before eir fatal death) merely by going upstairs, or otherwise going > upwards (an action which is possible in NetHack under several > circumstances); and therefore it is quite possible that ihope's > character ascended at some point during the game. However, the wording > of the pledge may quite possibly have excluded this case (I haven't > looked at it closely).
In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if the Nethack sense of "ascend" was understood to be the relevant term in the spirit of the contract and the eyes of the parties. -Goethe
