On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Oh, it was a scam and you broke it, just for the wrong reason: I was >> going to declare it self-ratifying a few minutes before seven days >> after it was published. :) Ah well, we'll see how the other CFJ goes. > > I'm blind right now... which rule allows that? [And if you claim it > again, I'll hit ya with a misleading... ;)] -G.
Just Rule 2238. I'm still in the realm of power escalations, which if not necessarily easy are certainly more numerous than normal scams, so not much harm in mentioning it. Clearly I'm horrible at disguising ratifiable statements anyway. :) By the way, here's an opinion question: suppose that I was able to deregister anyone. (I'm not, but there's a similar scam.) At the moment, 'player' as defined by a Power=2 rule is a fairly good representation-- more of a clarification-- of the ordinary-language meaning of the term. Thus it's appropriate to use in Power=3 rules. However, if everyone was deregistered, even though the same rule would be defining Citizenship, the Power 2-defined 'player' would no longer match the ordinary-language meaning of 'player'. Does this count as enough difference to make the definition void?
