On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 03:15 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Hrm. This is interesting. (If they're different) Would the verdict be what > I intended the message to mean or the consensus on the interpretation of > what I've written?
It'd be pretty bad for the game if a person's actual intentions (which can be guessed at but never known for certain or proven) had an effect on the platonic gamestate. Self-ratification might be able to stem the issues slightly but it's better to avoid them altogether. Conditionals are evaluated based on what they actually say. If that's ambiguous or there's no single clear meaning, the action typically fails altogether (assuming it's an action by announcement, and most actions are; see the last paragraph of rule 478). -- ais523
