Kate 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.
My take is that R2152's "described action" refers to the full process
of "X CAN Y by Z", without attempting to ignore any part of Z or
overrule how other rules define it. In this case Z is "paying a fee",
but if the caller's argument worked, then it could equally well be
applied to other actions where Z is "by [publishing an] announcement"
(as opposed to sending a private message, or just thinking about it).
--
[ANSC H:GE V:G B:0]
