Re: [s-d] [s-b] Reassignment

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:13:29 -0800
> From: emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Reassignment
> 
> ais523 wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 07:46 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> As I understand it, the argument for YES is that a rule saying "X may
> >> Y by Z" does not thereby say "X may Z". Note that, when Z is not
> >> defined by the rules, then 5E57 explicitly designates it as a Thing
> >> (even if it's an abstract piece of contract-defined gamestate that
> >> doesn't use an ownable-object-like metaphor) and allows a contract to
> >> create it.
> > 
> > The problem is that even with that argument, Z still becomes a "activity
> > specified by the Rules that changes the state of the game". Yes, I think
> > that this is a serious bug in rule 5e10.
> 
> That just defines Z as a Game Action. A rule needs to say "X may Z"
> before 5E10 will expand it to "X may Z as a Game Action".
 
That is correct, what has been created is a thing and only exists within the scope of the contract.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Messenger just got better .Video display pics, contact updates & more.
http://www.download.live.com/messenger
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss