...or - Some CfJ-rule already exists to let us ignore its effects.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:41 AM Cuddle Beam <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this would cause: > - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable" > and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins > - Or the Judge would make a new CfJ-rule that would allow us to ignore its > effects altogether because it can't be "reasonably" computed. > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:47 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin": >> > { >> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award": >> > { >> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the >> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1 >> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this >> > rule repeals itself. >> > } >> > } >> > >> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the >> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this >> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin. >> > >> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really >> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to. >> > >> > —Warrigal >> > >> >> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want >> to see if pass first. >> >> > >> >
