>I’m not, at least for the present. Agora cannot receive cards, and in any case, carding Agora has no ludic effect, platonic OR pragmatic.
Agora would need to be a person too. (because "The person <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> to whom the Card <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2426> is being issued (the bad sport), and" in R2426) I don't think that with our current definition of Person and Agora, we'd ever be able to have Agora be a Person, because Agora, as the gestalt of our game actions, depends on our own "independent thoughts" to exist, because it's those which create game actions and everything Agora "is" (according to the Ruleset definition of itself). On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Also, I am curious about the implications of Agora doing > > something ILLEGAL. > > I’m not, at least for the present. Agora cannot receive cards, and in any > case, carding Agora has no ludic effect, platonic OR pragmatic. > > On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in > > any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the > > Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an > > intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting > > player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should > > be considered broken. > > > > It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in. > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Should be uppercase CAN in "A player can call in" I think. Also should > > there be MAYs? I'm still confused about that. > > It should, for consistency if for no other reason. It’s also possible that > that “can” is meaningfully different from “CAN” in this context. Thanks. > > I believe that MAYs are not required here, as the actions defined here are > not otherwise made illegal in any way. They’re Regulated, which means it is > only possible to do them as described, but they’re not obviously in > contravention of a SHALL NOT or similar anywhere. MAY appears to be useful > for carving out exceptions to blanket illegality, not for ensuring that an > action that’s otherwise not defined as being either illegal or as legal > will be legal. CANs are sufficient for that, in most cases, by my read of > Mother, May I? and related precedent. > > -o > >
