On 5/21/23 15:12, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:35 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> This is my Judgement for CFJ 4030, which asks: >> >> Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times >> for a single instance of a ritual act. >> >> This is also my first Judgement. I hope I did alright. >> >> Guidance in Rule 217 states: >> >> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >> takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >> judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> >> However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: >> >> When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by >> announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and >> the new ritual number. >> >> The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint >> once, or that you can anoint multiple times. >> >> Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran >> custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence >> from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to >> permit it as evidence for this case: >> >> I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current >> custom >> and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained >> totally fairly >> under that assumption. >> >> However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to >> anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to >> allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": >> >> To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN >> [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is >> the >> way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of >> pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a >> card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing >> in >> the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would >> interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations >> in >> other games. >> > I thought I should add my voice to this. I actually do see a suggestion of > the "whole deck" interpretation in the text of the rules. The rules text in > question uses "CAN", which is defined as follows: "Attempts to perform the > described action are successful." Note that "attempts" is plural. This > suggests that by default, a CAN allows multiple instances of the same > action to succeed. This definition of CAN is very permissive-feeling, so I > think you judged correctly in not restricting the CAN to only allowing a > single action. > -- > snail
Not that this is the actual basis for the judgement, but I don't think that's relevant. To me, this clearly hinges/hinged on "After" not "CAN". -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
