On Jan 30, 2008 5:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, Rule 478 explicitly redefines a public message with one,
> clear definition:
> A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum
> or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of
> intent
On Jan 30, 2008 6:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Rules don't need to define an action to proscribe it.
>
> In this case, it would still be perfectly possible in the absence of
> the rules to falsely make a statement in a manner that the rules as
> they exist deem to be public, i.
On Jan 30, 2008 4:17 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if the player making that statement believed it wasn't true, then
> that statement would be a lie, which is what the statement says?
The rule prohibits any person from making a statement that e does not
believe to be true. T
On Jan 30, 2008 4:15 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > since
> > making a public statement is not a rule-defined action.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. How would it be possible to violate Rule
> 2149 if the act of 'making a public statement' is not defined by the rules?
The Rul
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149.
Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
Judge BobTHJ
I agree with H. Zefram's anal
> since
making a public statement is not a rule-defined action.
I'm not sure I follow this. How would it be possible to violate Rule
2149 if the act of 'making a public statement' is not defined by the rules?
Levi
On Jan 30, 2008 1:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
Zefram's assessment seemed reasonable to me, although I think that the
statement is too general to be found TRUE; UNDETERMINED seems more
appropriate. Note also that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE here
On Jan 30, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
> > cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149.
>
> Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
>
> Judge BobTHJ
I agree with H. Zefram's analysis. Rule
On Jan 29, 2008 10:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1887
>
> == CFJ 1887 ==
>
> Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
> cause the person m
9 matches
Mail list logo
