Friday, April 26, 2019

Call for Judgment: Rule of Three

Reached quorum 4 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 27 Apr 2019 14:53:37 UTC

Zaphod took a GNDT action of “Trading in 3I for 1R”. The rule for swapping resources says “At any time a Contractor may spend 3 different resources or 2 funds to gain 1 resource of any kind.”

My reading of that rule was that the Contractor would have to spend one each of three resources, and not three of one resource - otherwise why use the word “different”? Nobody would argue that “spend 3 resources” could be met by spending the self-same single unit of resource three times over.

Replace “may spend 3 different resources” with “may spend 3 different resources (i.e. one each of three resources which are different from each other)” and consider Zaphod’s action to have been taken - and illegal - under that new wording of the rule.


derrick: he/him

26-04-2019 15:47:45 UTC


Though I must confess I made the same misread when I first read that rule.


26-04-2019 21:49:38 UTC

The wording seemed ambiguous to me, but I showed it to a friend of mine and we thought it read “different” as in different from the kind of resource being acquired. As in, “gain a resource of any kind by trading in 3 different resources.”


27-04-2019 04:27:47 UTC

I intended it to be what Kevan’s change makes it.

Zaphod, i dont see a situation where anyone would willingly trade, for example, 3 robots for 1 robot or 1 robot 1 transportation 1 engineer for 1 transportation. So that restriction need not be imposed. I should have been more clear, sorry.


27-04-2019 12:02:18 UTC



27-04-2019 12:43:12 UTC

I agree with the argument but don’t like the rule change fix against