On 11/17/24 10:43 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 arguments AGAINST:
I think this is unsuccessful. We should consider by which rules'
authority such an action can take place—by R2125 ("Regulated Actions"),
we have that some rule must permit its performance or else it has no effect.
> Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each specified
Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
It would be inaccurate to say that "the action of paying stamps to gain
radiance is both a fee-based action and a regulated action," but rather,
"the action of paying stamps to gain radiance is a regulated action
*because* it is a fee-based action." As described by that rule, it
CANNOT be performed except as described by R2579 ("Fee-Based Actions"),
which outlines BOTH its method of being performed—announcing the
intention to spend such assets, in addition to the action being
performed—AND the efficacy of such an announcement. R2125 defines
Regulated Actions as follows:
> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances under
which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to
be a recordkeepor.
The action plainly falls under (3), but it also falls under (1), as the
Rules permit its performance, and so it would be unusual to claim it
does not fall under (2): the Rules do indeed describe the circumstances
under which it would succeed or fail. That is, if R2579 allows the
action to be performed, why should the rule not also be allowed to
prohibit the action from being performed under specific circumstances?
Thus, if R2579 is the rule by which such an action can be performed,
then it unambiguously fails.
It should be noted that the act of announcing does NOT inherently cause
its success; "by announcement" is a specific method for regulated
actions defined in R478 ("Fora"), which does not have authority over
this action ("by announcement" is not used in the text of the action nor
in the text of R2579, and is a distinct type of announcement from the
announcement required by "Fee-Based Actions".) Thus, if R2579 is NOT the
rule by which the action can be performed, the action is UNREGULATED,
and unambiguously fails.
--
kiako
