On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 11:39 -0400, Paul McDowell via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:34 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > An overt intent to declare Apathy, however, is likely to be > > objected to by pretty much everyone, so there's not much point in > > trying. > > Fair point. 'Tis a silly rule, then.
The idea is that if someone finds a scam that lets them perform a tabled action *despite* objections, that they can use Apathy as a mechanism to win the game with it, rather than having to cause a lot of gamestate damage in an attempt to escalate it into a win. Overt intents to declare Apathy don't work very well, but if the rules are broken, there might be some less overt way to do it. Elsethread, you wrote: > And it's not clear to me from any rule that you must say "I intend > to..." in order to make an intent. I don't know about anyone else, > but I only do things that I intend to do, so to me "I do X" implies > "I intend to do X". This is the sort of scam that, if it worked, might potentially be a good use for Apathy. However, I suspect it doesn't work due to the third paragraph of rule 1728; that defines "intend" as a synonym for "table an intent", which requires the intent to be made "explicitly" (otherwise it doesn't count). -- ais523
