Typical G. "well, in my day" incoming:
Conditionals in general crept in through the back door. Before conditional voting, they were mostly very simple, e.g. "If I haven't already payed by AP, I pay by Shiny." Usually this was in the context of quoting a past questionable action and attempting to make sure something happened, or making sure you didn't accidentally do something twice, and was very straightforward, and was accepted due to sheer practicality and wholly unofficial. Anything that wasn't really, really direct was generally tossed out and failed. However, some types of conditional specification were directly forbidden either by rule or by custom. In particular, things like "I award a patent title to All people who meet X" was forbidden, because "all" wasn't a clear and direct list specification. You had to name names, always. (Part of that was that timing used to be more hard-coded, if you didn't explicitly order the list, you hadn't suitably specified the order in which each sub-action happened). Conditional voting was explicitly added as a mechanic, and since it was official, you could get convoluted (within the explicit bounds of the rule). This generally caused a creeping up of what was acceptable for unofficial conditionals. There was no hard foundational CFJ or decision IIRC (or if so, it was before my time), we just gradually allowed weaker specification of stuff. Still, occasional CFJs will point out that this is all unofficial, and if it's outside "reasonable effort" to decode at the moment it's posted (so yeah, no future stuff) it still gets tossed out in theory. On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a > nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said, > so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit > > action-doing in general. > > > > I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another > > useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue). > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this > >> paragraph has any effect. > >> > >> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title > >> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor, > >> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize > >> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation. > >> > >> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to > >> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I > >> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted > >> in the previous paragraph. > >> > >> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title > >> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017). > >> > >> -Aris > > > > >
