Heh - the "if I have not done so already" is conditional on whether your
previous conditional worked so you haven't solved your problem...
On 7/28/2019 9:59 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Oh, I didn't know that.
If I have not done so already, I temporarily deputise for Referee to perform
the following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(I really hope this doesn't get me another No Faking charge...)
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Precedent (or at least game custom) says that you can’t condition an action
on whether something is LEGAL. The reason is that SHALLs are often used for
things that are hard to calculate (e.g. faking), and so such conditions
make the gamestate ambiguous.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:08 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
I note that the office of Referee is vacant because its former holder
(R. Lee) has ceased to be a player.
If I CAN do so, and if it is LEGAL for me to do so, I temporarily
deputise for Referee to perform the following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
but oh well.
Jason Cobb
On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
- Falsifian
I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
cases:
* E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
attempted action.
* E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
actions would fail.
* E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
Cobb to try to convince us of this.
I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
--
- Falsifian
