On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 04/07/2010 09:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> G. wrote: >>>> Er, why not make it just by order they are awarded champion, which >>>> can't be simultaneous? This creates a pre-known unbargainable hierarchy >>>> among conspirators for a win (if that ever should matter). -G. >>> >>> What do you mean it can't be simultaneous? "I award Champion to >>> each player satisfying @CONDITIONS" shouldn't become ineffective >>> just because some other rule cares about the ordering. >> >> Sure it should. It's an administrative convenience like most other >> conditionals, ambiguity should cause it to fail if the ambiguity >> creates substantial differences. Which reminds me: is the precedent >> still in place that "if the order of a set of commands is >> ambiguous, and the order matters, than all the actions fail"? It >> was written in the rules, removed in the great repeals, but I don't >> remember if it's been re-established since as a precedent (or not). >> > > I have worked out a temporal model of Agora based on infinitely divisible but > discrete units of time (think rational numbers). While it has never seen > official use (the issue it was contrived for had a resolution that didn't > require it), based on it and implication in the rules that actions can be > simultaneous, I would say that the actions occur simultaneously and it's up > to > the game to sort things out.
I agree when a single action might have multiple platonic carry-on effects. But when it's several distinct actions which technically require individual actual messages or message-parts for a person to perform (like awarding individual patent titles), any claim to send those multiple messages simultaneously by use of a collective noun is A Typical Example Of [etc]. -G.
