I believe it was my idea, from when we were cleaning up some minigame re-enactment (I think it was PAoAM), so that we could converge the rules without worrying about whether or not the original proposal actually worked or not. AFIAK it hasn’t been used since, although I think it needs to stay in the rules to prevent the Rulekeepor from being obligated to figure it out.
Gaelan > On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > Huh - I've never seen that used and forgot or didn't know it existed. I > meant it in the wholly informal sense of "now the coin balances are the same > regardless of how I got there". > >> On 1/30/2019 2:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a convergence >> in the rules sense—you need to designate it as one with 3 Consent. >> Gaelan >>> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Coin Convergence: >>> I earn 5 coins for judging CFJ 3698. >>> >>>> On 1/30/2019 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> CFJ: Prior to calling this CFJ, G. earned 5 coins for judging CFJ 3698. >>>> Arguments: >>>> R2496 reads in part: >>>>> A player CAN earn the set of assets associated with a reward >>>>> condition exactly once in a timely fashion each time e fulfills it >>>>> by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action. >>>> [...] >>>>> * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time >>>>> limit to do so: 5 coins. >>>> There's no public requirement whatsoever for "stating". Therefore I note >>>> as >>>> evidence, under penalty of No Faking, that immediately after submitting my >>>> timely judgement for CFJ 3698 (and confirming that it had reached the >>>> lists) but before beginning to compose this message, I stated out loud to >>>> myself that I earned 5 coins for the judgement.
