|
>>
|
No. 4075
File
132116338865.png
- (133.63KB
, 432x477
, Wizardhuntingronoue.png
)
As both parties in this dispute have agreed, i'll now exercise my authority as delegate and provide a verdict in regards to the accusations concerning the possibility of one "logic error".
The primary issue of debate here, as I see it, relates to the precise nature of a definition provided by the gamemaster, namely, the red that states certain keys are to be considered "unusable".
As the plaintiff's argument is structured, this red, by way of definition, invariably predcludes the ability of said keys to perform their intended function, defined in these circumstances, as either locking or unlocking a room door, or other opening of similar constitution which could potentially serve as an entrance or exist. In this sense, the plaintiff's argument is one of absolutes- As the plaintiff asserts, a damaged or "unusable" key, by definition, is inherently unable to fulfill its intended purpose. This is clearly corroborated by the defendant himself:
Ref - (If a key is 'unusable' then it cannot lock and or open any door.)
However, an important factor to consider in this case, is that the defendant is simultaneously making an implicit assumption that this definition is applicable both forwards and backwards in time. In other words, according to the plaintiff, a status, such as that of usability, once conferred, may never be rescinded; that it bestows upon the object an irrefutably quality of existence.
This claim makes the dispute at hand largely one of interpretation. Does a key being "unusable" mean that it was never able to lock/unlock? This claim undoubtedly has a certain grounding to it. After all, is not an inedible substance impossible to consume without the onset of detrimental side-effects? In the opinion of this delegate, the answer to that question is 'no'.
My reasoning and justification for this is as follows:
The definition put forth by the defendant is purposefully crafted in the present tense; it does not explicitly make the claim that the "unusable" keys in question were never capable of performing their duties, only that the status ascribed to them bestows upon them the condition
of non-use. As statuses, also by definition, may be defined as transient states of being, their application in this context would seem to indicate that the GM's red intends to say that once a key is made "unusable", it is thereafter no longer capable of locking any door; the key's usability before this, however, remains in question.
Further corroborating this interpretation is the nature of the red truth itself. Specifically, red truth is defined as text that simply tells the truth. By this definition, the red presented by the defendant is quite valid, as an unusable key is by its very nature unusable. It is tautologically true. Whether or not the very same key could possess any functionality before it became unusable is strictly irrelevant, as this is outside of the referenced red truth's domain. In response to the plaintiff's accusations, it is important that we be cognizant of the fact that the defendant is not implying in any way that all keys are "unusable" at all times.
Ref( If a key is 'unusable' then it cannot lock and or open any door.)
Furthermore, a key, also by definition, must either lock or unlock to be considered what it is. Simply stated, a key is something that locks, and for a key to be unable to do so would rob it of its title. In this sense, The plaintiff's claims are refuted by means of reductio ad absurdum- if a key can never be said to have been functional, it was never really a key in the first place.
If the plaintiff would remain, after reviewing these facts, inclined to question the validity of the transient state interpretation as it has been described, I would implore his to reference a somewhat ironic red he so conveniently issued
himself:
Ref("nanjo is not the culprit!")
In conclusion:
This solution is fair!
Ozaki is hereby found innocent of malpractice!
This is not a logic error!
Also, Kinjo is incompetent! Kyahahahaha
My verdict is both final and binding. Case dismissed.
|
