On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM, omd wrote:
> (this has actually been tried, though I
> don't remember the outcome)
On further review, this was actually only in a rule I purported to
prepare to scam in using a very lame mechanism on April Fool's Day a
few years ago. Anyway, it probably wouldn't
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. As you say, one Rule says you played a card and have it, and
> another rule says you cancelled the play. The rules conflict, so
> the play of the lower-powered is "conflicting" and void.
But the odd thing is, the latter rule isn't conflic
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
> > this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as
> > meaningless.
> > I think the aforementioned lawyer had a
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Fool wrote:
> > For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
> > current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
> > resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R224
omd, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:35:23 -0700 :
> Precedence between rules (though not clauses) was largely the same in
> 2005 as it is now; the wording of the card paradox is "that card shall
> be deemed to have not been played", which is not really a rule
> conflict, though it could arguably be interpre
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Fool wrote:
> For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
> current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
> resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R2240 ("In a
> conflict between clauses of the
Kerim Aydin, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:37:53 -0700 :
Some history:
From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless.
I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before
my t
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
> I become active.
Welcome back!
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If so, can this be used for a
> scam - e.g. if I break two entirely unrelated rules with entirely
> unrelated actions, can I do a single case accusing myself of doing both
> 'X and Y' and thus avoid individual punishments?
Note that criminal
I object to making me inactive.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, omd wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to make Henri inactive.
> I intend, without objection, to make Ienpw III inactive.
>
> (As a reminder to the players in question, it is normal to object if
> you don't want to be inactive.
10 matches
Mail list logo
