Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >
> > From 5E10: A Game Action is defined as any activity specified by the
> Rules
> > that changes the state of the game. To perform a Game Action, an Outsider
> > must post a message to a Public Forum specifying that they are taking
> that
> > action.
>
>
> So, joining a Contract is a Game Action, right? That means regardless of
> whether or not I breathed or emailed CREAMPUFF, I didn't join any
> Contracts,
> since I didn't say I was doing so. Doesn't this Rule take precedence over
> Contract Law?


Well, when you put it that way...

My reading of this was that action, not omission, requires contact to the PF
if a Player is to take a Game Action. Yet nothing says that omission can't
be the basis (physically, not legally) for joining a contract. In the case
of the CREAMPUFF thing, had it been real, I picture the creation of the
contract as creating a sort of switch for every player (not an actual Switch
game object...) that is automatically to ON. Any Player can turn eir switch
OFF by posting CREAMPUFF. If, after 5:00 UTC, a player's switch is ON, i.e.
they have omitted to post CREAMPUFF, they are considered to have joined the
contract.

I can see how your interpretation could be valid too. It's debatable. I
guess mine boils down to the idea that you NOT taking a Game Action (hence
no need to post to the PF) could cause you to become party to a contract.
Just the fact that it directly changes attributes of a particular player
does not mean that a Game Action is necessarily taken by that player (cf.
being stabbed, being sentenced, being awarded mack, etc.)

5E10 DOES take precedence over 5E57 (the Contracts rule), but that wouldn't
matter if we worked with my above interpretation.

HOWEVER, your pointing out of that precedence did make me realize why NONE
of these auto-deregister scams can work at all, given the current ruleset.
At worse, a partially successful scammer might be guilty of (# Players)
counts of causing unwilling contract-joining, while all others would be
guilty of breaking a single contract obligation.

>From 57: When a Party becomes obligated by a Contract to perform a specific
game action, any Player may Trigger that action on the Public Forum, causing
the obligated Party to attempt it.

Contrast to Tyler's exerpt from 5E10 above. As he stated, 5E10 precedes
5E57. Therefore, the "triggering" mechanism doesn't actually work. The
obligated party can't attempt an action without posting it emself.

BP
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss