On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
I'm really confused... Questions (for Ørjan, I guess?) inline. I'm quoting Ørjan out of order since my questions make a bit more sense in that order.The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I became a player: White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). ... I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that time. Isn't the time period in question?Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602: A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a Ribbon. Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but does not actually say so.Are you saying that sentence I left out is relevant to this case? I can't think of any interpretation where it is, if we're going to stay faithful to "the text of the rules takes precedence". I agree about the intention, but that doesn't matter here, does it?
Indeed. I'm just saying it would be a good idea to fix the rule to say what was intended.
I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence. It looks grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as negations do. If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon) vs. If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it.I don't understand how this is relevant to the case either. If my claim about the time period is true, then under both interpretations I successfully awarded myself White Glitter. Do you agree with that?
Yes. I wasn't commenting on that part.
Are you saying my claim about the time period is false? I think I'm missing something...
I guess I made it unclear that I _wasn't_ disputing your new argument.
-- Falsifian
Greetings, Ørjan.
