On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Taral wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole, >> then I take none of them. > > I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an > unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this?
Except for voting, conditional actions are wholly a courtesy and (longstanding) game custom, aren't they? Disclaimers were recently the subject of (controversial) CFJs, and we haven't really settled the case on how they interfere with timing. For example, in the sequence in a message: 1. I do 1. 2. I do 2. 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1. It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The "simultaneous but sequential" is no longer in the rules but is also kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of them at best. In other words, the whole thing is built on conflicting and controversial CFJs, and we probably need a legislative fix. "Unreasonably difficult" conditionals don't work (see first paragraphs of Maud's judgement in CFJ 1460) but I'm not sure if it's the unreasonable issue or the timing issue that's most important here. -Goethe
