Complaint: It seems The Continuum and the Modus Ponens rules are also currently worded this way and are not being interpreted the way you are interpreting them.

Therefore, it seems like this should have been a Call for Judgement.

I suggest we change the ruleset for the future so that it coincides with our intepretation.  No retroactive changes should be made because that would be confusing with the possibility of this having happened more than once..

By your logic, are these instances of you breaking the continuum form of this rule?  (I’m honestly asking, I’m not sure):

13/07 03:11 (UTC) - Bucky
  Bucky’s Formula = w+x+yz=t (was w+xy_z=t)

13/07 03:11 (UTC) - Bucky
  Bucky’s Formula = w+x+y+z=t (was w+x+yz=t)
(&^%$#@!)

and:

10/07 10:28 (UTC) - Purplebeard
  Purplebeard’s TemporalLocation = 1448/12/25 (was 1448/11/25)
10/07 12:38 (UTC) - Bucky
  Bucky’s TemporalLocation = 1448/12/25 (was 1419/11/26)

I side with kaddar

So basically we have an ambiguous construct?  I don’t usually use “A” where “Any” would do.

Well, on further examination, we’ve been using “A” this way for a while.

Further further examination suggests that the location of Occasionally, rather than the article/adverb used, is the critical factor.

Further examination shows that rule lawyering at that level is frowned upon by most people, and that some leeway must be given about the interpretation of rules. “A Traveller may, occasionally…” means to me the same of “Any Traveller may, occasionally…” or “Each Traveller may, occasionally…”

I don’t really like often and occasionally.  I would prefer “Recently” and “in a while”.  Here is why, we could word it as such:

Single Limited:
All [Thing] Gain the ability to: If [verb] has not been done by this [Thing] recently, this [Thing] may [Verb]

Set Limited:
All [Thing] Gain the ability to: If [verb] has not been done by this [Thing] recently, this [Thing] may [Verb]

And here it is with shorter wording:

Single Limited:
If [verb] has not been done by a given [Thing] recently, that [Thing] may [Verb]

Set Limited:
If [verb] has not been done by any [Thing] recently, a single [Thing] may [Verb]

If you guys like it I’d make this a formal proposal.

err sorry, the set limited:

All [Thing] Gain the ability to: If [verb] has not been done by any [Thing] recently, this [Thing] may [Verb]

Right on, Chronos.  Let’s get back to our game, all.

So, by the way you’re interpreting the rule, it cannot be used at all?

That aside, I don’t see how my bribing Kaddar was illegal. I’ve never used the Broader Bribery! subrule before, so it is well within my power to use it. “A Traveller” could be the same as “Any Traveller”.  When somebody gets hurt badly, they’re taken to “A Doctor”. It doesn’t matter who they are, simply what they are.

CP - In general, I’m happy with rules lawyering in Nomic (isn’t that the whole point?!)

However, I agree with your interpretation that “A/any/each traveller may often…” all mean the same thing and all forms allow every traveller in the game to perform the action often independently of other travellers doing the same.

Saki, it’s a shame you’ve got caught up in this.  Sadly, now that Bucky has reversed your GNDT change, your only recourse is to CfJ it.  If you go down that route, I’ll a CfJ that re-does the changes.

D’oh!  That “shall” in the next-to-last paragraph of Rule 1.7 is pretty annoying.

Or you could just do it again.