>>> For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend”
I think “plan” is sufficiently synonymous with “intend”, especially because I expressly invoked the “method” of Rule 1728(1) (that is, the without-objection-intent method). >>> This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. Thanks! :-D On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
