On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated,
>> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some
>> ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same
>> instant of physical time. (I do not believe that tusho's arguments
>> have merit: although a light that is turning on may be neither off or
>> on, it is one of on or not on.)
> Rule 478 is very clear that multiple actions by announcement in the same
> message happen simultaneously.
"Simultaneous" doesn't appear there, or elsewhere in such a context.
Rule 1527 used to read:
Whenever a message contains more than one action -- such as a
notification, report, or other communication -- on which the
Rules place some legal significance, the actions in that message
shall be taken to have been sent sequentially in the order which
they appear in the message.
If a message attempts to perform multiple actions simultaneously
without explicitly stating a specific order for the actions,
then the attempt shall be considered ambiguous and without
effect if the gamestate would be substantively different for any
two orderings of the actions. For the purposes of this test, the
actual order the actions are performed in is not considered
substantive, but other differences may, at the discretion of a
judge, be considered substantive.
The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace
it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of
"game custom and precedence" as long as the rules remained silent.
A support for this custom is that it's still true for Rule changes (R105):
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
-Goethe
