wunst wrote:
Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion:
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:
Proposal: No apathetic apathy
Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text:
A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then
fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe;
such
failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room.
What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is
the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal?
> I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot
> with apathy.
>
> Intended effect (probably?):
>
> 1. A intents apathy
> 2. nobody objects
> 3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction
>
> But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal
> as it says nothing about the intent having no objections
More than that, the goal is to discourage the trend of almost all
intents to declare apathy having no obvious path to success beyond
"lol maybe every single player will inexplicably either fail to
notice or fail to object", which is pretty boring IMO.
Now if e.g. you actually spot and try to exploit a subtle bug in the
tabled-action rules, or try to bribe objectors to bury an "I withdraw my
objection" announcement in the middle of a long message (I have received
such bribe offers approximately zero times), then that is when apathy is
actually interesting. Even if it fails, if a good-faith attempt of this
sort was demonstrated, then I would advocate for a reduced NRtR fine.
