On 5/28/2022 2:03 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > As I think has been discussed on the list before, after the recent > change to the tabled actions rule, it appears that you can take a > tabled action multiple times from a single intent. (The wording of the > rule is fairly clear on the requirements, and "not having used the same > intent to take the action before" is not mentioned.) Recent game custom > also implies this – people have been objecting to attempts to take > fairly innocuous actions that would have been quite dangerous if > repeated many times.
FWIW, this was a bug in the old rule too. It was purposely preserved in the re-write under the idea of "make sure to produce the same results in a big re-write, make bugfixes later". > The main question, therefore, is whether I can succeed 100 times in > assigning the Device to myself. A power-1 rule says that I CAN, and no > rule seems to imply that I can't, as long as "[the] Device has no judge > assigned". (I also need to be eligible to judge the Device, but I am > eligible to judge generally, and there is no reason why the Device > would be a special case.) If I do succeed in doing this successfully, > then everyone gains 100 of every Card, and I win as a result of being > able to convert my Win Cards to Winsomes faster than everyone else can. Counterarguments: I think common language holds that when you've assigned something to yourself, assigning it to yourself again isn't an actual action (it does nothing so you can't do it, because the thing is *already* assigned to you, and trying to assign it you yourself again is ISIDTID). As evidence, we have to explicitly say in the rules where "a change that is no change is actually an action" (e.g. with switches). Note: to be clear I'm smiling at this scam and think it's great I just wasn't comfortable with my ability to judge fairly as long as there are counterarguments I can come up with (if I couldn't think of any reasonable counterarguments at all I'd go ahead and judge it). > We therefore need to interpret what it means for the device to have a > judge assigned. I can see three main possibilities: either there isn't > any way for this to occur, and thus the Device is never in a state of > having a judge assigned (even though it is possible to assign the > Device to a person, this is distinct from assigning the person to the > Device); or else the action of assigning the device to a person causes > the person to become an assigned judge for that Device (which is how > the Arbitor interpreted it, possibly as a counterscam attempt); or else > the concept of a judge being assigned to a Device is a concept that's > based on the mental state of the Arbitor (i.e. the Arbitor considers > that player to be the primary judge for the Device). > > With the first interpretation, this sequence of actions obviously > works. > > With the second interpretation, there's some inclarity because the > "device changes" as a consequence of being assigned, which would turn > it on (the Device is a switch with two states, so changing it would > presumably cause it to change state) – and that causes the part of the > rule about judge assignment to Devices to turn off, so it may cause the > assignment to disappear in the same way that repealing the rules > defining something normally cause that thing to disappear. > > With the third interpretation, the Arbitor has stated that e will > assign CFJs about the Device to me if my intent is successful; however, > this assignment policy is reliant on the Arbitor being aware that the > intent has gone through (if someone called a CFJ about the Device after > I sent this message, but the Arbitor happened to read the message > containing the CFJ and assign it before e read this message, e would > not have any reason to assign the CFJ to me specifically), so the > required mental state in the Arbitor comes about only after e has > received this message, and thus I'm not assigned to the Device until > after the message has ended. (Incidentally, I'm a little dubious that > this interpretation can be correct because it would seem to violate > rule 2140, in that the meaning of "a judge is assigned to a device" > would appear to be a substantive aspect of the Device rule, and the > Arbitor does not have enough power to change that.) > > I'd like the judge to rule on which interpretation of the Device rule > is correct, in addition to ruling on whether or not I won as a result > of this message – as usual with this sort of rule, the wording can > often lead to interesting questions of interpretation because it was > originally intended for a different context. > }}} >
