On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> If the action was forbidden, would I have wasted my 0 VCs, or would
> the "spending" of them not take place? (Compare N=-1 in 2126 b) if the
> guard were not there.)
Past game custom strongly supports that if you try to spend something to
do something that fai
On Thursday 06 December 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'll add in passing that if VVLOP was even defined as a "number" or
> "integer" or something, I'd forbid the action. But defining it as a
> "parameter", where "parameter" is not rules-defined and very broad in
> its common and mathematical definit
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> and 3) alone is enough to rule 1813 FALSE, which is why I didn't
> join Wooble's appeal. I'm instead disputing 2), on the grounds
> that treating VVLOP as an implicit set is too big a stretch.
Ah yes, even if an appeals court "overturned" (2), they'd still
On Dec 6, 2007 2:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguing that the AFO's VVLOP was not increased wouldn't change the
> judgement of FALSE.
That's true, but it seems to be me that it's game custom to treat the
reasoning behind judgments as precedent for future judgments, even
though, i
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried).
Nice one, completely ignoring a preceden
On Dec 6, 2007 12:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
> implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
> of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried). In this
> hypothetical context
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> As an additional point, note that "parameter" *is* primarily used in
> mathematical contexts, and its usage (a fixed value) does not
> contradict Goethe's usage, although it does not directly support it
> either.
Actually, what I spend 50% of my real life jo
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> However, this only works if the set contains a -1 to be
> removed.
To be fair (though I wish you'd just appeal with this argument rather
than try to make a conflicting precedent which I'd appeal as being
inconsistent with the old one), this is the point tha
On Dec 6, 2007 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the rules don't define a parameter clearly (whereas they would
> define something like a "number"), we can reasonably abstract it into
> a mathematical concept (sets) which allow the operation, and if can be
> so abstracted.
A
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
> implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
> of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried).
Nice one, completely ignoring a precedent and calli
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Indeed, if hours of research could only find 1 example of this type of
> usage of a term and even that usage wouldn't apply in this case I'd
> say it's been pretty well established that in a mathematical context
> the term decrease isn't used to mean any
On Dec 6, 2007 1:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> > such an interpretation is reasonable.
>
> That's presumably why e wrote more than just "I
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> such an interpretation is reasonable.
Reasonable is as reasonable does. :)
On Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> such an interpretation is reasonable.
That's presumably why e wrote more than just "I choose interpretation
X." In my opinion, this is one of the most bala
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By the way, I define "a little respect" as taking a similar several hours
> to ...[blah blah blah]
> -Goethe
pps. Apologies Wooble. That was a bit snappy. I'm a bit under-the-weather,
and I spent a bunch of time over the last week with this one in the
On Dec 6, 2007 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> > the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
>
> Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
>> the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
>
> Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result, provide
> something that I
On Dec 6, 2007 11:30 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment.
>
> "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
I think Goethe's arguments demonstrate that it can.
-roo
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
Obviously, it can. I just did. If you don't like the result, provide
something that I haven't directly refuted already, otherwise have
19 matches
Mail list logo
