On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:46 PM Falsifian wrote: > Here is my draft. Could anyone point me to precedent about what it > means for information to be "reasonably available"? My draft includes > my own reasoning, but if it's been covered previously I should use that > or at least mention it. That's the only reason I'm circulating this as > a draft instead of my judgement.
I couldn't find a direct cite on a casual archive search, but my memory is that your phrase here: > I find that information that is completely > unavailable to most or all of the players of a game is certainly not > "reasonably available" in the context of that game generally matches a few past judgements - the idea stuck in my memory is that the scope of "reasonable" in this context means "available to a typical/arbitrary player in the game without unreasonable effort". On 2/17/2021 12:42 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > For what it's worth, even if it had been available on request, I don't > think that would have been enough under the circumstances. It didn't look > like it was available on request, and so I wouldn't have thought to request > it. If G. had said that e'd give it to anyone who asked, that might have > been a different matter. In one version of my PM removal attempt, I had "I state under penalty of No Faking that the LAWS do not disable this particular action." Usually our standards of evidence "take a player's word for things" that aren't directly contradicted, it would have been interesting to see how that affected the result. -G.
