I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing proposals somehow?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously > haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :) > > Jason Cobb > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously > > > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just > > > has no effect? Is that correct? > > > > Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It > > says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal', > > which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't > > exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the > > other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one. > > > > If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence > > of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence > > switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as > > the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one. > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
