On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 07:16 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I place a bid on Antegria equal to my entire balance of Shinies when the
> > time of the closure of the bid.
>
> In the last few weeks, the assumptions seem to have been made that there
> is support for future conditionals in the rules.  There isn't (except for
> votes).
>
> Quazie delivered a judgement (3505), that gives very *narrow* support
> for allowing it under limited conditions, while noting that it *mostly*
> wasn't ok:
> > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially established/
> > enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information gathering is
> > left up to the reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and
> > I will uphold that logic for most cases.
>
> As should be obvious from the above bid, willy-nilly allowing of future
> conditions screws up a LOT of mechanics; Auctions are a prime example.
>
> At this point, I'd suggest legislation, stating that unless specified
> otherwise for specific types of actions (e.g. votes), conditionals
> must be clearly resolvable, with publicly available information, without
> unreasonable effort, at the time they are made.this
>



Feel free to make the boo agency and use my body to pen this rule.


>

Reply via email to