Hostile Takeover et al.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

So whoever goes first goes first. If player D does actually play Delaying Tactics before player B, player D's is the one that wins.

Thanks for writing that out in detail, it was all news to me.

Hence, we return to the fact that since you have to (potentially) handle this very same issue in every referendum, handle it the same way here.

Ok. If Pascal hadn't just made a ruling, my next question would be how do you handle the issue in referendums. I mean, telling me to handle it the same way as in referendums doesn't really tell me anything at all if there wasn't a ruling on how to do that. Do you see what I mean? Anyway, I got my answer.

Pascal wrote:

Well, perhaps we need a ruling here. Note that this ruling would only apply when the Judge can't tell who spoke first (existing rulings apply if that's not the case).
In the event of betting / declaring effects during a referendum, if two declarations are simultaneous, we use sequencing to determine which one happens first. If that makes the other declaration invalid, it is withdrawn. Otherwise, it remains.

This isn't actually a new ruling. (I managed to misplace the search terms required for this, which I'd seen, and then lost in my browser history.) Well, the bit about invalidating a subsequent effect is "new", but logically follows.


[LSJ 20030707]

LSJ, wrote:

Jeff Haar wrote:
> During a referendum is there any organization determining when someone
> may play cards? Who has the oportunity to play cards in what order

Voting is free-form (unstructured).

If there is a conflict, use 1.6.1.6 to resolve.

Which is to say:

- if player A (acting, would ordinarily have the impulse) declares a bid or effect during a free-form polling or auction before player B, player A goes first
- if player B (who wouldn't ordinarily have the impulse) declares a bid or effect during a free-form phase before player A, player B goes first
- if players A and B genuinely play or declare something simultaneously, player A goes first

But this is not a way of introducing sequencing by the back door. (Certainly, it wasn't intended to be, or LSJ could just have instituted normal sequencing for referendums and open auctions.) If player B did do their thing before player A did, sequencing does not apply. It's only when there's a conflict that can't be resolved by reference to the actual order of play.

Finally some consistency in rulings