Indeterminacy is different to "ambiguity". The indeterminacy here arises from the inability to determine the location of a certain game asset, rather than lack of clarity in the text of the rules of the sort that rule 217 could resolve.
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:18 PM Tanner Swett via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Dead-horse arguments on CFJ 3828: > > Respectfully, I think the Honorable G. has read too much into Rule 2518 > "Determinacy". I think that that rule is merely a definition of the words > "determinate" and "indeterminate" and has no intentional consequences > besides that. In particular, nowhere does Rule 2518 say or imply that if a > value is indeterminate, then we are relieved of any duty to attempt to > determine it. > > Furthermore, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that in case of > ambiguity, the text of the rules "is to be" augmented by four factors. The > use of the phrase "is to be" suggests that such augmentation is mandatory; > we are expected not to simply give up on attempting to answer a question > merely because the answer is not clear from reading the rules. > > Of course, Rule 217 is clearly not saying that every player at all times > has a responsibility to attempt to resolve every open question. But surely > a judge *does* have a responsibility to attempt to resolve the question > which e has been called to judge. > > The rules certainly do anticipate that a value may be wholly and thoroughly > impossible to determine; otherwise the judgement of PARADOXICAL would not > exist. But, all the same, I think that before assigning a judgement of > PARADOXICAL, a judge is responsible for explaining why all four of the > factors listed on Rule 217 fail to resolve the indeterminacy. > > In any case, I thank G. for eir judgement. > > —Warrigal > -- >From R. Lee
