Peter Cooper Jr. on Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:31:37 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: Peter tries to Scam

Iain <iop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The "standard"(?!) interpretation of r18 is that it applies to the
> effects of actions, not just the cause: so the creation of points
> and the changing of rules are both regulated elsewhere in the rule
> set, hence neither is permitted by r18. I think this (or a very
> similar) scam has been attempted before.... but since we stopped
> giving titles for such things, I cant recall when or who...

Dan Schmidt <tiber264@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Too late. Zarpint tried did this a few nweeks earlier
> and it didn't work. Nowhere in the rules does it say
> that making 1000 points or changing rules are actions.

Well, those reasonings make sense (and I expected that someone had
tried this before), but then my question would be: why does r393
("Players may not change the game state.") exist, whereas I don't see
a similar restriction for other Game Objects?

At the very least, I do have a Society, which may come in useful at
some point.

Peter C.
"Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss of a carrier
can be tolerated."  -- RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
                                  Datagrams on Avian Carriers"

spoon-discuss mailing list