On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 16:36 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I have no issue with throwing in another code to be interpreted as >> "PRESENT", or disabling voting period extension on Star Chamber. The >> current situation is bad though because only the initiator knows if >> the voting period is extended, and this is open to scams (especially >> if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the >> rule against that?]). > > Rules of the form "player A can't also be player B" normally collapse > down to "find an accomplice".
Indeed, but in this case an accomplice would actually result in a rules violation. Sean
