I thought it mightn’t. Thanks for the comprehensive breakdown. Of course, I had to try - that clause is spectacularly awkward to parse, and I don’t _think_ the interpretation where destroying Agora is a possible action is completely unreasonable, but I’ll happily admit I didn’t expect it to work, and I’d accept the card without qualm if someone called for it.
As far as actually doing something constructive goes, how do you feel about this wording? > Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, > it is owned by Agora. If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership > to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to > an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity > outside that class other than Agora. Assets owned by Agora, for which Agora > is not in the class of entities which may own that asset, may be destroyed or > transferred by any player, without objection. The restrictions in this > paragraph are subject to modification by its backing document. -o > On Aug 17, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This doesn't work, for several reasons. First, I object. Second, the > text in question is "If an asset's backing document restricts its > ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by > or transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it > is owned by an entity outside that class (except for Agora, in which > case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection)." I > think it's fairly clear from context that the "except for" qualifies > the "entity outside that class". If not, destroying Agora would > probably require Agora to be an asset. The Rule 217 factors weigh > pretty heavily for the first one, and I can't see a judge siding with > your interpretation. Finally, and most importantly, this would "cause > Agora to cease to exist", and thus Rule 1698 specifies that "it is > cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding." > I'd point my finger for the 2471 vio, but 1. it's an intent; and 2. a > green card would be perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. > > -Aris > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On one hand, nifty. On the other hand, I think that it would be rather >> unfortunate if we destroyed Agora, whatever that might mean. Thus: >> >> I object to any intention that does not immediately result in 天火狐 in earning >> a Black ribbon. >> >> 天火狐 >> >> PS: I would love to see an argument that destroying Agora results in me >> earning a Black ribbon, thus making my objection not relevant. >> >> On 17 August 2017 at 00:50, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >>> >>> This time, with spelling. >>> >>>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 12:48 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy Agora, >>>> no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time. >>>> >>>> -o >>>> >>>> (I don’t think that rule should say what it does, obviously, but I’m not >>>> sure what it actually says, either.) >>> >>> Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I *intend*, without objection, to destroy Agora, >>> no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time. >>> >>> -o >>> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
