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. >
