On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 09:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Calling this a delve, too? (seems a shame not to cite R2338 in the > > arguments > > to do so). -G. > > I hadn't particularly planned to, but I don't really see why not. I'm > not sure it's a massively good delve, as it depends more on 2337 than > 2338. (Perhaps remove the restriction of citations altogether, and just > have the Delvor decide what should be a delve and what shouldn't?)
I hesitated there because I didn't want to miss considering something that someone says after the awards "hey, that was a delve, dummy!" Still, I would have rather awarded root than Wooble that last round. Maybe will change it for next round to say "the Delvor can call a non-labelled action a delve, but is not obligated to, so if you want to be sure it's considered, label it." I think you're right that your case isn't the "best" delve, but think it's good to encourage the spirit of "choosing that Goal got someone to re-read that rule carefully, and led to a case" (you re-read Promises in general because of the goal choice, right?) -G.
