On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal<ihope12...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon >> > > then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white; >> > > even though the rules stop using the term "white ribbon", white does >> > > not cease to be a color. (Likewise, a rule can have power 3 even >> > > though the rules never define 3 as a valid non-negative rational >> > > number.) Even if it white did cease to be a color for some reason, the >> > > ribbon would have to revert to a default color; there is no reason for >> > > a ribbon to stop existing simply because its color ceases to be >> > > defined, any more than a proposal or a player would cease to exist if >> > > its Title ceased to be defined. > > Counterargument: "Each color of Ribbon is a currency." (R2199). > This implies (by currency definition) that the individual fungible classes > of ribbon are in fact distinct enough to cease to exist if their color > wholly ceases to be defined. -G.
"A currency" just means "fungible within itself"; it says nothing about distinction from other assets. "Fungible" certainly never means "ceasing to exist when one of its attributes ceases to be defined"! If a ribbon can exist without its color being specified by the rules *or* white is still considered a color even though it's never defined as a color, then white ribbons still exist in some form. I believe that *both* of these are true. Have we already called the relevant CFJs, i.e. "There exists a white ribbon" and "For some white ribbon that existed before 'white ribbon' ceased to be defined by the rules, that ribbon still exists"? —Further Arguer Tanner L. Swett
