Peter Cooper Jr. on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:04:24 -0500 (CDT)

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

[s-d] Re: [auto] EugeneMeidinger submits p160

EugeneMeidinger has submitted a new proposal, p160:
> Append to rule 1-3:
> {{
> In a series of actions, if one action is found to be illegal then any
> actions after it whose effect are changed by this fact are also found
> to be illegal.
> }}

The problem with this is that we don't really have a concept of an
"illegal" action, or an "action attempt". We just have a bunch of
actions that it is possible to do. It may be tough to distinguish
between just a statement that someone is making about the game in a
Public Forum and an attempt to take a Game Action. And it's not that
we "find" actions to be illegal, it's just that they never happened
since nothing gave them the ability to happen in the first place.

Something like this could work, but you might want to add a way to
specify what does and doesn't count as an action attempt. I'm not
quite sure how it'd work though, which is why I proposed my
transaction proposal. But I'm not sure how well mine will work

Peter C.
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
spoon-discuss mailing list