At the very least, I've learned a lot from this! On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:49 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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 >
