omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> 3110: Â I opine SHAME
>>
>> While Rule 754 (2) does not apply to "Victory Condition", Rule 2125 (c)
>> does apply to "cause to satisfy a Victory Condition", which neutralizes
>> this scam independently of Rule 2125 (e).
>
> Gratuitous: I disagree with the argument about "cause to satisfy a
> Victory Condition", as there is no text in the rules with a form
> particularly similar to that(?)
Debatable (but hey, it's an opinion). Here are the current
rule-defined Victory Conditions, which at least can be consistently
expressed in terms of causing someone to satisfy a VC:
* R2344 - when someone causes the President to deregister, e causes
themself to satisfy the VC of Anarcy
* R2332 - when someone destroys 250 of someone's points, e causes that
someone to satisfy the VC of Accumulation
* R2333 - when a contestmaster announces contest winners, e causes
them to satisfy the VC of Victory
Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule stating "upon holding an office
continuously for 15 months, a player satisfies the VC of Tenure".
> Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
>
> Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing "SHAME" with "NO GLORY".
Proto: Amend Rule 2343 by replacing that paragraph with:
The valid judgements for a victory case are:
* GLORY, appropriate if the Victory Condition was satisfied as
described and no other judgment is appropriate
* NICE TRY, appropriate if the Victory Condition was not
satisfied as described, but the initiator could reasonably
have expected that it was so satisfied
* SHAME, appropriate if the Victory Condition was not satisfied
as described, and the initiator could not have reasonably
expected that it was so satisfied
* LAURELS, appropriate if a judgment of GLORY has already been
reached on an earlier case over substantially the same victory
* OLD GLORY, appropriate if the case alleges that the Victory
Condition was satisfied more than 90 days before the case was
initiated
