On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > questions for the judge to consider: > > 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous > consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature, > if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said > "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick > very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the clear > statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous > because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally).
It's also worth pointing out that we're getting lax. A message such as that would likely have drawn an "I object" simply out of general principles if it were made a few years ago. Perhaps this atmosphere of general paranoia is something that it'd be useful to restore, just in case considerably worse scams than this come along. (It's also good to see the "scam lightning rod" effect of Apathy working; part of its reason for existence was the hope that people who found a viable scam against dependent actions would simply use it for the Apathy win rather than something that could do rather more damage than that.) For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend", which may have been defined away from its normal English meaning at some point. (We have history of allowing "I intend to do X" even in situations where the rules require players to tell the truth, and the player doesn't actually have a natural-language intention to do X, on the basis that that's a speech action rather than a statement of plans. However, that may have been based on a good-of-the-game argument that "sometimes you need to leave floating intents around to, e.g., guard against scams".) This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. -- ais523
