Re: 169:A (more) (fwd)

From: Anton Cox (A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 08:48:15 PDT


This was meant (I am told) for the list, not just me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jesse Welton <jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
To: Anton Cox <A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 169:A (more)

Anton Cox wrote:
>
> Also, if I wanted to be super-pedantic, I could argue that in 169:1 we
> were told that
>
>   "hopefully you will all have copies of the board and so you will
>    know what is going on."
>
> I dont think that the "hopefully" modified can be reasonably attached
> to anything other than the state of ownership of a copy (ie the quote
> is of the form "(hopefully X) and so Y"). I do have a copy of the
> board, and thus by the rest of the quote "I will know what is going
> on."
>
> If Aron's rule holds, then ever since the start of the round I have
> not known what is going on (ie, that there was a counter and that it
> was decreasing), which seems to be another way in which his rule
> contradicts 169:1.

Now this, I don't buy at all.  In *this* respect, Aron's rule is no
different from any other which revealed a rule of the game.  For
example, one could have argued that 169:2 was INVALID because we
didn't know ever since the beginning of the round that the Safe House
protects pieces on it from events caused by other spaces.

-Jesse

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-03 15:47:33 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST