> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:37 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> CFJ: babelian has pended eir most recently submitted proposal. > > This is CFJ 3552, and was paid for (in a subsequent message) using AP. > I assign it to o. (Sorry for two in a row, but you were behind.)
This appears to be the converse of CFJ 1470. There is a strong game convention of forbidding retroactive effect. While the act of performing a single act across multiple messages is NOT regulated by the rules and is purely convention, it is not in the interests of the game’s health to permit an action which, taken on its own, would fail, to succeed with the addition of a substantially-delayed followup message. A number of material game actions occurred between babelian’s first and second messages, so eir follow-up message, which purports to “top up” the original attempt to pay for pending, should not be treated as a continuation of the same act. Instead, we should treat them as two separate attempts to pay 5 shinies apiece, and not as a single attempt to pay 10 shinies. As both actions were conditioned on pending a proposal, and as the proposal could not be pended by paying 5 shinies on either occasion, I find the statement > babelian has pended eir most recently submitted proposal to be FALSE. In consolation, babelian has clearly kept all ten of eir shinies, and can easily correct the mistake by pending the proposal with either shinies or action points at this time. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
