Talk:Ardford summit/@comment-31763506-20181012122037

Sorry, Decanter, but I want to defend my removal of the consequences line because I think it was entirely justified. Also, note that if the revert is upheld that you also want to reinstate the matching line I removed in the investments page.

First, the switch name that prompted its inclusion has long since been changed to "Ghenalon Investment". Second, we have now experienced future consequences in the form of RP for Fheliel. Third, the nature of those consequences provides an obvious motivation for SL to have included the original ambiguous switch name: she didn't want to increment a Fheliel RP value directly in Ch. 2 because doing so would be a spoiler that Fheliel was a future harem member. That theory is sufficient to explain all of the evidence without positing that there will be still further future consequences, since there is now nothing in the event code for the game suggesting that is the case any more than for any other investment switch. Occam's Razor therefore supports the conclusion that the consequences have been experienced and the note is now unnecessary.

If you based the list of investments and Ardford Conference notes on the current event code only, there would be absolutely no reason to include the "unspecified future consequences" note.

(Even if you do admit the old switch name as evidence, and you want to be utterly pedantic and note that the consequences in the now gone switch name is a plural noun, but the singular "consequence" is never used idiomatically in that context in English.)