Okay, how did this go from "The shiny balance can not be negative because it is an asset, not a switch." to "Any Player CAN destroy the universe With Notice."
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and > AP-pend it: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Create the following power-3 Rule, "A very very bad idea": > > Any Player CAN destroy the universe With Notice. When the > universe is destroyed, all assets are destroyed and all > switches are set to their default values, simultaneously. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (I note that this could be adopted within the 14 days before Aris's > intent message expires). > > > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Arguments: The universe is certainly too large for me to destroy on my > > own. My intent clearly also doesn't do anything, because no rule > > permits it to take effect. However, it is my belief that since Agora > > is, for game purposes, both omniscient and omnipotent, if a rule > > permitted my intent it would succeed. This probably wouldn't do > > anything though, because nothing would cause any aspect of the > > gamestate to stop existing, or even necessarily the players. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:10 PM, ATMunn . <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I CFJ with AP on the following statement: > > > Aris's intent to destroy the universe is valid. > > > > > > Caller's arguments: The universe is too large for Aris to destroy. > > > > > > [What a stupid thing for my first ever CFJ to be. I love it. I honestly > > > don't care how this is judged.] > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Aris Merchant > > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> I intend to destroy the universe with notice. > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > >> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I intend t win the game with two days' notice, as described in > Proposal > > >> > 7923. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 10/20/2017 06:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote: > > >> >>> I intend to win the game with two days' notice, in accordance with > > >> >>> Rule 7923. > > >> >>> (Does this really work before it's even a rule?) > > >> >> Yes, but it's not Rule 7923 (that's the proposal), saying it was > "Rule > > >> >> 7923" > > >> >> instead of "as described in Proposal 7923" might make this > announcement > > >> >> wrong > > >> >> enough to fail. > > >> >> > > >> >> It works because in Rule 1728, the requirements are worded > backwards in > > >> >> time; > > >> >> the action works if the rules allow it *when you try to finish the > > >> >> action*, > > >> >> provided you announced the intent a few days before - and the rule > > >> >> doesn't > > >> >> care that the action wasn't possible those few days before when you > > >> >> announced > > >> >> the intent. > > >> >> > > >> >> -G. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
