Wooble wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to >>> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case. >> The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wooble uses "I award a Bean to the >> player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" as an example of a >> situation where the player would be specified, but CFJ 1307 strongly >> implies that the player would not be adequately specified in that case >> because we do not have perfect information. > > The information is readily available. Such a specification would > unambiguously identify me.
Depends on whether comex means "we do not have perfect information before it is judged" or "we do not have perfect information even after it is allegedly judged (because the allegation could be wrong)". I assume e meant the former, in which case your judgement agrees with em: > In CFJ 2065, the specification was ambiguous at the time the message > of intent was sent because it referred to events that hadn't yet taken > place and which couldn't be predicted in advance. When announcing > intent to perform a dependent action, one must unambiguously identify > the parameters of the action that will be taken dependently in the > future, and they must be unambiguous at the time intent is announced. > Thus, if the rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean without > objection", a statement by comex of "I intend, without objection, to > award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" > would allow em to award me a bean without objection if e made the > statement after this judgment is submitted, but would not allow em to > award me a bean if e made that announcement earlier than the > submission of this judgment.
