Call for Judgment: Try 3
Timed out. Fails 1-3—Clucky
Adminned at 24 Jan 2012 08:43:40 UTC
Amend the third bullet in the rule “Numbers and Variables” to read:
Unless otherwise specified, to “spend” or “lose” an amount X of a numeric value “V” means to subtract X from V (i.e. replace V with V-X); to “gain” X of a numeric value “V” means to add X to V; and to “transfer” X of a numeric value “V” from A to B means to subtract X from A’s V and add the amount A’s V was reduced by to B’s V. Only positive amounts can be spent, lost, gained, or transferred. Unless otherwise specified, a rule that allows Criminals to transfer a numeric value only allows them to transfer that value from themselves to another Criminal (of their choice unless otherwise stated).
Correct the GNDT, and change the gamestate if necessary, to correspond to this interpretation. In particular, Clucky’s recent attempts to lose -1 Wealth are considered to have failed, so at the time this CfJ was raised, they had 7000 Firepower and 0 Wealth (because they attempted to convert all their Wealth to Firepower).
Comments
Clucky:
Clucky:
Also “change the gamestate if necessary” means we’d need to go through the entire history of blognomic to see if anyone has pulled this before.
Also also thanks for being a dick and not resetting the license stealing. Nice to know your motives are about whats best for omd not clearing up an ambiguity in the rulespace.
Clucky:
Furthermore, there is no “Unless otherwise specified” on the clause you add. This makes it *impossible* to transfer negative amounts of money to other players.
omd:
Why would anyone ever want to specify otherwise? It would be better for the rule to say “this subtracts X from the actor’s foo and adds X to the target’s foo”, because defining it as spending when it has completely different ramifications would just be confusing. (Transferring money from a person other than oneself, on the other hand, would still be a “transfer” under any definition.)
Clucky:
Right, but you’d have to say “A duck may transfer X feathers from himself to another duck or from another duck to himself” instead of just “A duck may transfer X feathers, including a negative amount, from himself to another duck”. Obviously you can get around any of those by wording the rule strangely enough - but it is just limiting not to let you specify otherwise.
omd:
As for breaking history, arguably the current definition made any rule that said “whenever someone gains X” break catastrophically, so… :p
omd:
I think your former wording is better actually, but I don’t care very much. If this passes I will use a proposal slot on adding “unless otherwise specified”.
Clucky:
why not just make another proposal now? Also I still don’t get why I’m getting punished for a technically legal play.
ChronosPhaenon:
Josh:
omd:
Are you objecting to the rule text, or the “correct” clause? The former is only a small modification to what’s already there.