ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523<callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power >>> 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that. >> I Say This Is The Correct Interpretation And Therefore It Is The >> Correct Interpretation? > > Nobody has argued for another interpretation of the rule in question, on > this list or a-b, yet. Acting on behalf is secured, that's pretty > obvious; the only contention is whether sending a message is acting on > behalf of yourself, and game custom up to now, as well as common sense, > and the precedent of CFJ 2077, says it is. Everyone suddenly seems to > have changed their minds, though, now that's been used as part of a > scam.
How does Rule 478 fail to allow it? Also, do you agree that interpreting "equivalence" = "shorthand" thus unidirectional would (if accepted, even if you don't accept it) break the scam?
