On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > >>>> I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > >>>>> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > >>>> This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > >>>> permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > >>> > >>> Using what method? > >> > >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule > >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who > >> have 100 barrels.) > >> > >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently > >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players > >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short > >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise > >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" > >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most > >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain > >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those > >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that > >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits > >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an > >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive > >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other > >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). > >> > >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game > >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it > >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but > >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and > >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The > >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; > >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it > >> succeeded! > >> > >> -- > >> ais523 > > > > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? > > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based > > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically > > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, > > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid > > out by the rules. > > > > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the > > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. > > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would > > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I > > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes > > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. > > Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen > against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in > general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A > player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.")
Why does the wording make a difference? I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. - Falsifian
