On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or >> AP-CFJ >> if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there were >> currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the >> universe >> by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I announced >> that >> I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of the gamestate >> being >> as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the game is concerned, >> have >> the effect it purported to have." > > This is CFJ 3580. I assign it to G. > > [note to Aris: despite yesterday's discussion, while I believe a judge would > not be *wrong* in finding this case irrelevant, I am in fact quite interested > in the philosophical underpinnings, so I "favored" it and and I plan to give > it a full consideration as per your request. I don't actually know where I'll > end up with it at the moment]. >
Thank you. I want to provide arguments, but it may take a few days. There is one point that I feel very very strongly about (either the rules are omnipotent or, alternately, the issue is out of scope), and I have a few suggestions about how to deal with everything else. -Aris
