Historically Victory By Apathy has been a good way to bring activity
back into the game during a lull. And the fact that it proves a testing
ground for these kinds of claims makes it a sort of release valve. Jason
Cobb could have tried other actions that would've caused more gamestate
confusion.
On 7/18/19 1:12 AM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
I create the following proposal
Name: NO MORE APATHY
AI: 1
Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy"
Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design.
Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we didn't
have the Apathy rule, the brokenness would either go unreported, or
else be used to break something more important than a victory
condition.
The whole point of the rule is that if something goes wrong in the
dependent action rules, players use it to win rather than, e.g., force
through a ratification of a false statement.
--
ais523
