On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 19:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined > > > > value. I'd have thought the most sensible resolution of this situation > > > > is to calculate the result as 4. > > > > > > I find this more persuasive. Anyone want to call a CFJ? > > > > Until a CFJ is resolved differently, the Rulekeepor agrees with this > > more persuasive line. -G. > > Note that it doesn't really persuade me, but in cases of gamestate > recalculation, I think it's worth looking at all the plausible arguments > (and I agree that that one's at least plausible). > > In this case, I think I'd prefer a gamestate-merging solution, though (I > often think of this as "Murphy-style" because Murphy was so good at > them). There's too much at stake otherwise.
Fair enough. I should have phrased this "until the extraordinary claim is shown, the rulekeepor's not taking extraordinary measures."
