One issue with that interpretation might be that "to flip" is a term of art.
Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:19 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
