On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> comex wrote: >>> Are we in the first game, or the (number of >>> game wins + 1)th game? >> >> The way Agora has been structured since ?1995, there is no "Nth game", >> we're in just "the game". The phrase "the first game", in the context >> of R104, has a special meaning, though: it refers to the period from >> the inception of Agora until the first win. That's an historical usage, >> based on the game structure that existed at the time. > > But what about in the context of Rule 2193? As a new amendment, ought > we to let it use archaisms? Or should we interpret "the first game" > as, just, "the game"?
Well, "the first game" isn't defined in the Rules. However, it's part of the "game state" that there once was a first game, then a second, etc. until the numbering system was removed. It's kind of like how the rules can speak of ID numbers that are higher than previously assigned, even if the entities associated with previous numbers don't currently exist. -Goethe
