On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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.
Hi Aris,
I pretty much need to write this one up tomorrow or I won't get to it before
the deadline, just a friendly warning if you still feel "very very strongly"
about stuff! (I think I know where I'm going with it so don't feel obliged,
but of course I'll study & consider anything provided).
-G.
