We'll have to wait for murphy to judge the CFJ regarding this to sort out the game state, but if it did work it's fixed and if it didn't work my pended proposal makes it unambiguous whenever it gets passed so the only thing at issue is whether or not we're all winners.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason why > things happen". It's more a way to decide among the competing rule > interpretations, as people keep pointing out to me when the file motions to > reconsider my CFJs. :) > > -Aris > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> I believe this clearly fails because of precedent. >> ---- >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> > On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:57 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this, >> > although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending >> > CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly. >> > But I can't not *try* >> > >> > I intend in the next sentence to have every player win by apathy, >> > without objection. >> > >> > Every player wins by apathy. >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J Rada >> > -- >From V.J Rada
