On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on > behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find > justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional > misinterpretation of the rules. E knew the action e purported to take > would be impossible, before e sent any messages purporting to > undertake that action, and sent the anyways.
Potential counterargument: it's clear from this thread's subject that CuddleBeam hasn't given the rules more than the most cursory reading, as (without a rule change) there can only be one Trust Token win ever (rule 2452, the same one e cited!), so hoping that other people would give em a win "too" would be very implausible if e had actually read the rules. Perhaps we need to make explicit in the rules the long-standing principle that if you're participating legitimately, people will help you out and explain things you missed (thus not requiring you to know the whole ruleset), but if you're trying to scam a rule, you're presumed to have read it in detail? -- ais523
