On 11/7/19 5:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Even if your scheme works in general, it might fail due to the specific case you chose to test. “by announcement by its owner” has the word “announcement” limited by “by its owner”. That likely makes it a different thing from just “by announcement”.
I don't think the "by its owner" phrasing has any effect. The action of transferring each Coin CAN still be performed by announcement (by someone), so I think the wording enables me to do it.
Anyways, I chose this test case in particular because I thought it would have only a minimal impact on the game, and I thought it had a decent chance of working with assets. I'm not planning to exploit this any further; I just kind of wanted to see if it would work (and, of course, who doesn't want money?).
Also, is it possible my ruling in CFJ 3759 might be relevant?
I don't /think/ so. As far as I can tell, there's no grammatical ambiguity here to enable forcing R217 factors into the case; this appears to just be a wording bug. And even if there's a R217 case here, there's much less "best interests of the game" significance here; particularly, I don't think there's any ossification risk.
-- Jason Cobb
