lmao my sides On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 7:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Naw when I wrote that I was picturing this one: > > http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/tim-and-eric-mind-blown.gif > > On 6/12/2020 10:04 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > > tfw you transcend logic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmeH6Rnj2E > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:53 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 22:24, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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. > >> > >> - Falsifian > >> >
