On 5/5/2020 6:30 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 19:03 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 5/5/20 6:45 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Rule 2553: “If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game >>> action” >>> >>> CFJ 3828: “A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased >>> the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” >>> >>> I think the CFJ statement is in the wrong form for a paradox win. You >>> would need to have asked about the possibility of, e.g., transferring a >>> number of coins equal to [the amount you would otherwise have held + 1] >>> to another player. >> >> I don't follow this line of reasoning. The CFJ was about a game action >> (those of a coin being given to "someone") and it was asking about the >> legal interpretation of the consequences of this coin award. To me, it >> seems like it fits the bill. > > How is it a game-defined action? It's something that could have been > done by the game rules, rather than something done by a player; and > whether or not it happened, the rule in question would have been > repealed at the time the CFJ was called (thus even if you count actions > performed by rules, the game would no longer be defining the action in > question). > > Perhaps we need a CFJ about what "action" means. >
The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't change the fact that there's an action with an actor? Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule succeeded in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it was POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?" I'd personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen". I can see your point too and can think of some arguments in support of it... might be borderline enough for its own CFJ, or maybe up to the Herald whether it is or not...?
