On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 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. > > I believe the way I structured my message avoids that > retroactive-cancellation problem. > > I do apologize for the finicky conditional, but I really don't want to > make a major transaction like that and end up losing most of my crops > for no benefit.
Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is, assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not straightforward, the officer should reject it and say why. Kind of like "I do X Y times" works if it's reasonable, but not if Y is infinite or paradoxical or ridiculous or beyond a reasonable effort to figure out. (For this one, I didn't look at your statement but was just replying to Taral's question on legality). -Goethe
