Pavitra wrote: > Nice try, but R217 actually says this: > Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, > past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the > game. > > In particular, "the text is ... inconsistent" here. Therefore we are > fully justified in using CSJI* to determine precedence.
Fair. However, I would then argue that Agora is a Nomic. We even have a rule specifically saying that. Nomics seek to eliminate paradoxes by awarding those who find them, especially where the finding of such a paradox is nonfatal to the game, as in Agora. If we could simply wash away all inconsistencies by choosing a definite interpretation that we liked, there would be no paradox, making the winning condition quite useless. The Nomic game custom, even older than Agora's, is that a definite and explicit contradiction between two rules is a discovery that results in a reward for the discoverer. Furthermore, it is in the best interests of Agora that this CFJ be ruled UNDECIDABLE, as fixing Paradoxes in innocent situations such as this one is very good for Agora compared to them deing discovered after a significant bout of gameplay reliant on one behavior or the other. By providing an incentive for players to present Paradoxes in a harmless manner, the quality of Agora's ruleset is improved. > I argue that it is in the best interests of the game for this to mean > that, upon your inactivation, The Pier became owned by the L&FD by > another mechanism than transference. That also fails. There is no reason that, if the clause transferring it the LFD fails, it would lack an owner. It is owned either by me (the transfer fails due to it being a fixed asset) or by the LFD (the transfer succeeds due to me being inactive). As a result, a paradox of ownership H. CotC, please add this message as arguments as well.
