ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some fun, here's the argument, any refutations?
The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a Rule "requires" something be done by a certain time limit. If a Rule says "you must do X before you CAN do Y", but you are not actually required to do Y, then doing X is not a requirement at all, even if the sequence is time-muddled. To see why, take the simple phrase "you must get a coin before you can spend it." That doesn't mean getting a coin is a "requirement" otherwise I could just spend 1,000,000 coins and claim "I have until after the holiday to obtain them." Or take the following reducio-ad- absurdum : "Before Goethe can win by Zotting, e is required to change the Rules so that e can win by Zotting." This is trivially true, but it doesn't mean I could legally win by zotting (and have the win count) then later say, "oops, I broke a rule by not changing the Rules so I could win by zotting, but I still won". All this (and the intent-dependent action sequence) is messing with the order of "game physics", which is not what the Holiday rule speaks of for "requires": "requires" should be restricted to dealing with "SHALL before X" and not the time-reversal of "CAN after doing X." -Goethe
