On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:11 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > I intend to appeal this with two support. Although I don't > particularly like this fact, it's game custom to allow a conditional > action if a person with perfect knowledge of the gamestate could > reasonably evaluate the condition, even if no actual person could do > so at the time. > > For example, nobody has challenged Wooble's recent post: > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[email protected]> wrote: >> If the rebellion failed, I pay a fee to destroy my 2 Rests (if it >> succeeded, I have no Rests) > > (This could arguably be gloss for "I do X; this might fail", but there > are plenty of other examples which are harder to classify.)
The real problem in this case is that every attempt to perform a fee-based action includes a self-ratifying claim that one possesses the necessary ergs. Allowing something to be conditional on the truth of a self-ratifying claim is ridiculous. In any case, the whole issue is moot because eir position on the list after the purported moves has itself self ratified; no one CoEed the following Herald's report. _______________________________________________ Agora mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
