On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, > the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading > the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions > actually work...
This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, though. I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora. -- ais523
