From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Cosmic Zap
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:53:44 GMT

In a prior article, Brian Kohn (bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com) writes:
> So, as I've discussed with some in email already, you may indeed lie
> about what you have, but you may not tell the truth.

In a later article, Luke Hankins (hankins@cs.swarthmore.edu) replies
> 	So I can say "I don't have a Cosmic Zap.", thus informing everyone
> that I do have one, since I couldn't be telling the truth about what I
> have...  (Or can you tell the truth about what you don't have?)

In an e-mail letter to me, Brian wrote:
> So, if you want to be technical, you CAN lie about what you have, but
> you CANNOT tell the truth.

I replied:

> Funky, but true. I don't like the rule in question, and would house-rule it
> out. What if you say something like "I think I'll win, because I have a
> high attack card"? What if you're Pacifist, and you say "I think I'll win,
> if you know what I mean," with a suggestive glance at your power? Where
> does "communicate what you have" stop? The rule sounds too vague for my
> taste. I do agree that given the rules as written, you apparently cannot
> claim that you have a card unless you don't actually have it.

> Note, incidentally, that you can apparently claim that you don't have a
> card, regardless of whether you do or not. It sounds like the intent of
> the rule was to keep players from talking about their hands. I don't think
> this is a good idea, and I also don't think the rule as written implements
> it correctly. I do like the "don't show cards" rule, but that's easy to
> define more clearly.

To restate that slightly: it seems to me like the rules, interpreted
literally, prevent you from claiming that you have a card in your hand if
you do in fact have that card, because you are communicating the contents of
your hand. The problem with barring "communication" is that in the scenario
Luke describes, if everyone playing the game knows that you can only claim
to have cards you don't have (and can claim not to have cards you do have),
then doing so is suddenly forbidden because it communicates the contents of
your hand! To get even more ridiculous if you agree with your group that
whenever you say "fish fish fish", it means that you're going to play a
Cosmic Zap on a power that would otherwise prevent you from winning the
challenge, you are immediately prohibited from saying "fish fish fish",
because doing so communicates information about your hand.

The point is that it's very hard to define what is meant by "communication",
since under some circumstances, telling the truth is communication; under
others, lying is; and under others, saying nonsense-words is (well, "fish"
isn't technically a nonsense word, but you get the point). On the other
hand, it could be argued that if your group agrees that you can claim
anything about your hand regardless of the truth or falsity of the claim,
then making claims can be seen as _not_ communicating information about your
hand, since no one knows whether the claims are true or false.

What it means to "communicate" is vague. As I mentioned above, I prefer the
"you can't show your cards" rule, both for clarity and because I think the
game is more interesting if you can claim to have cards you may or may not
actually hold.
-- 
original text by Josh Smith    ::   Comments, questions, etc. welcomed
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu   ::   #include <std.disclaimer>
"If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll
look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy."