I disagree that it’s possible to “meet” a list of zero criteria.

‘Can’ is defined as ‘is able to’ as a keyword:

Thus:

“The Zeitgeist is a list of Criteria that Artists [are able to] optionally meet in their posts to score Acclaim. It is tracked in the following Wiki page: “Zeitgeist”.

If the page exists, the list exists. If the list exists, Artists are able to meet it.

For the reason already stated on your story post - if you can perform an action on any one of a list of no things then you have no actions available. (And the suggestion that it might be possible to “meet” the list itself is category mistake.)

Indeed it may be a Category mistake in regard to how the author intended the rule to be read, my argument is that it can be read another way, and I have been given no reason why it shouldn’t be read in regards to the list rather than the criteria, as that makes sense in logical terms.

I don’t really understand what ‘if you can perform an action on any one of a list of no things then you have no actions available.’ means. My action was making my post. I didn’t not meet the list of criteria; rather, I met the criteria of a list of nothing.

because if the scam was successful, this means that you gain the acclaim again.

Maybe if I explain with a different example, then. Consider “a menu is a list of foods that customers can optionally eat”. An empty menu is a list of no foods and therefore customers have nothing available to eat. You are proposing that you instead eat the menu, which shows admirable determination to dine, but may not satisfy your hunger!

  due to a lousy precedent.

If we could upvote comments, I would upvote bateleur’s menu thing.

okay, s/k as it seems I am not getting my point across.

I like your colourful example, but it seems to me that since meeting the list is just as possible as meeting the criteria, it doesn’t work as an analogy. 

You can’t self-kill a CfJ, but it already had a quorum of against votes.