On 6/12/2020 9:53 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/11/2020 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 6/11/20 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I submit the following proposal, "win indirection", AI-1:
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Amend Rule 2553 (Win by Paradox) by replacing:
>>>>
>>>> that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the game.
>>>>
>>>> with:
>>>>
>>>> that case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic. When
>>>> a person transcends logic, e wins the game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [This should make all wins in the rules indirect: Ribbons,
>>>> Tournaments, and Apathy are indirect already]
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately I think Sets breaks this style.
>>>
>>
>> Yah I figured a Sets win was at least a month away (I hope!) so there
>> would be time - was thinking about the "proposals for a not-even-adopted
>> yet system" thing. :)
>>
>> But interestingly, if Falsifian's theory is correct, exactly 1 win method
>> would be allowed to be "direct", which would stop any other "direct" win
>> methods but still allow for indirect ones. So even if it isn't changed,
>> it's fine for now if the above proposal is adopted.
>>
>> -G.
>
> Sets uses "by announcement". As long as winning the game is not
> associated with a fee anywhere in the rules, I don't see a problem.
> Still, I support extending this proposal to Sets after it passes, in
> case there still is a problem, and to keep a consistent style.
The proposal is also based on the realization during the discussion, that
Rule 2449 very much made winning an "event" ("when it happens") rather
than an action that could be performed. I didn't know if anyone would
quibble that grammatical/causal point in the future but doesn't hurt to
separate the performable action from the event.
-G.
