On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: > > The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was > > immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be > > violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a > > message say that e forfeits. > > Okay, for the sake of argument: if he's required to forfeit *immediately*, and > instead he, for example, attempts to vote, then he's violating the rules. > Correct?
I wondered about this interpretation when I CFJ'd, that is, maybe Blob hasn't yet forfeited, but anything e does other than forfeit would mean e didn't forfeit "immediately", so such things would be against the rules for em to do. Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an "illegal" thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...)
