Time for negotiation after playing a card before terms are set

BenPeal wrote:

Thanks.
I'll bookmark this for the Nth discussion about banning Pentex Subversion.

Lemminkäinen wrote: Why the devil did you leave out the other part of the quote? The "in the mean time" part that means that Pascal is thinking about it? That's really dishonest of you.

There's nothing dishonest about it at all. Nothing changes without that sentence.

Pascal Bertrand wrote: In the meantime, I'm thinking of a good way to deal with this. Err. To handle this. Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff.

Pascal said that you can't make deals (aka negotiate) when announcing stuff.

THAT SETTLES IT.

By my read, "In the meantime..." means Pascal will look at the rulebook to clarify it.

Everyone here who is arguing that they should still be allowed to cheat by negotiating "when" playing a card really ought to re-evaluate the position taken. You are arguing to perpetuate cheating in the game whether you acknowledge it or not.

No one who is arguing to allow negotiations "when" playing a card has come forth with a suggestion to try and fix this. I guess that means you like the status quo, or at least your false understanding of it.

Only two change suggestions were mentioned thus far: My single word change ("when" to "as") and the suggestion to disallow talking "when" a card is played. Maybe you all ought to acknowledge what Pascal said and try to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

Jeff Kuta wrote: No one who is arguing to allow negotiations "when" playing a card has come forth with a suggestion to try and fix this. I guess that means you like the status quo, or at least your false understanding of it.

Some might say that our perceptions about others say more about ourselves. If that's true, maybe you yourself can't objectively discuss the reality of current rules text without becoming emotionally invested in one side or another and allowing that to skew your perspective.

But that would only have anything to do with your personality and nothing at all to do with the actual matter at hand.

Jeff I appreciate what you're trying to say around Pascal's post, but for the life of me it's not easy to interpret what he's actually saying.

I take from from the below:
1. Here is an example - did anyone cheat?
2. Say "I pentex Neighbor John" in less than a second.
3. In the meantime i'll think about this/
4. Dealing isn't allowed whilst announcing stuff *tongue out*

I can see why you might interpret that as just point 4) without the sticky out tongue
but I can also see why it looks like Pascal has said "i'm going to add this to my list of things to think about, please stop messing around and play the game"

You do seem to have a habit of interesting, black or white, interpretations.

Pascal Bertrand wrote: Amongst other facts to take into consideration about this, please keep this example in mind:

Player A bleeds with basic Govern the Unaligned.
Player B declares a block attempt with, say, Keith Moody.
Player A plays Lost in Crowds (annouonces "Lost in crowds..."), and, player C shouts "For the love of meatballs, play that card at inferior or I'm ousted!"
Player A finishes playing his card with "at basic".

Did A cheat?
Did C cheat?
Did anyone do something they aren't allowed to do?

I challenge anyone to say in less than a second "Pentex Subversion on Neighbour John".

In the meantime, I'm thinking of a good way to deal with this. Err. To handle this. Dealing isn't allowed when announcing stuff