On 11/17/24 11:43 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote:
On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 11:11 -0500, RadicalRose via agora-business wrote:
I win by paying a fee of 22 Stamps with each Stamp corresponding a different
active player, I intend to pay this fee for the sole purpose of winning.
I Call for Judgement on the statement: "RadicalRose won the game today."
This is an interesting one, thank you for the puzzle, RadicalRose! It
seems to come down to an argument that R2579 (Fee-based Actions) lacks
precedence to prevent a fee-based action from occurring if it is
IMPOSSIBLE for the fee to be paid. R2579 doesn't have a "rules to the
contrary notwithstanding" clause that would claim precedence over the
older rules, and it's unclear to me whether the language in R2125 about
"only using the methods explicitly specified in the rules" is sufficient
to defer to it.
I'll leave some time before assigning the case, to allow for arguments
or favours.
~qenya
Gratuitous argument AGAINST:
[3] (paragraph 3 of rule 2579) establishes a necessary, not sufficient
condition for using fee-based methods (namely, making an announcement
with certain characteristics):
To use a fee-based method, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise
permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing
the action; the announcement must specify the correct set of
assets for the fee and indicate intent to pay that fee for the
sole purpose of using that method to perform that action.
The remainder of R2579 determines whether the attempt clears the
sufficiency hurdle.
--
Mischief
Collector, Illuminator, Prime Minister
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: alive
Bang holdings: 2
