On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 23:01, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ============================== CFJ 2695 ============================== >> >> c. awarded emself 70 x-points via the Contract B contest. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> My intent when writing the rule was to create four limits >> for each contest (X-awarded, Y-awarded, X-revoked, Y-revoked). The >> text of the rule seems open to multiple interpretations however. >> >> ======================================================================== > > I will immediately dispense with the interpretation that the limit is a > real bound on a complex number of points, as "exceed" has no > mathematical definition with respect to complex numbers as it does with > respect to the reals. > > > R2233 reads, in part: > > The contestmaster of a contest CAN and SHALL award and revoke > points as directed by that contract up so long as the total > number of points awarded or revoked on any axis do not exceed > that contest's threshold index. Awards and revocations that > counteract a previous award or revocation for that contest that > was not in accordance with it's contract or that exceeded the > contest's threshold index do not count against this limit. > > The key words here appear to be "total", "any", and the "or" in "awarded > or revoked". > > > I interpret "any" axis to mean any given axis; that is, each axis. > x-points and y-points are individually constrained. > > > The plurality of the verb "do not exceed" implies that the subject of > the key sentence is not the (singular) "total number of points". It > cannot be "points", which is clearly enclosed in a prepositional phrase; > could "or" be interpreted in such a way as to make "the total ... > awarded or revoked" plural? > > I can imagine no reasonable interpretation for "or" other than that > points awarded and points revoked both count towards the same total. The > use of "do" rather than "does" must be treated as a R754(1) difference > in grammar or dialect. > > > "Total" has no further qualifiers or constraints on it, and I can see no > excuse in the text of the rule for inventing any. In particular, the > "total number of points awarded or revoked" on a particular axis is > totaled over all players, over all time, and over all contracts or other > mechanisms for awarding or revoking points. > > Rule 1586 suggests to me that x-points should be considered the same > thing as pre-Axis points, which implies that no contract has ever > awarded x-points. > > I suggest ignoring the text of this rule and letting the incorrect > obvious interpretation ratify until the situation can be fixed > legislatively. > > FALSE. > > This judgment implies that c. was not able to award any points via eir scam contests. This is what I am recording barring any appeal or follow-up case.
BobTHJ
