In terms of the common definition for "declare", it makes perfect sense.
In fact I called a CFJ on a similar issue (substituting "state" for
"declare") a couple weeks back, but I'm realizing it's not in the Gazette.
D. Margaux, did the following CFJ get missed or am I just not finding the
When I was initially planning this, I thought I remembered Rule 478
being power=4 and having some strong wording to the effect that
players can participate in the fora, and thought I could make a case
that a lower-powered rule like 2125 can't limit a player's ability to
You adopted the reasons, but arguably not the judgement. Could you say that
you judge it FALSE, just in case?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I adopt the below reasons as my final judgment In this CFJ.
> I earn 5 coins and award myself 3 PLA favours for issuing
Welcome, Falsifian! Good test of new rule - nice beginning!
In general, when a rule says "a Player CAN [verb] with Agoran Consent", it
means that e does whatever [verb] is using the Agoran Consent method; that
is, the "actual" actions the player takes are following the R1728 procedure.
Thanks, D. Margaux. The only thing I can think of is that "declaring"
might not be an action (and hence not covered by Rule 1728), or that
it might be synonymous with "announcing" or "publishing", which Rule
478 allows me to do. I'm guessing that Rule 217 and game custom
defeat those arguments,
Mail list logo