eugman on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:10:27 -0500 (CDT)

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

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

Well if something would break a rule or do something impossible  it could be defined as illegal right?  I'll just change my proposal to somethings else.
Of couse now instead of defining inundatron I'd have to define koogum...

Also I think since props happen in the order they are numbered you could have a conga line of gibberish defining.  You could even have conditionals in case certian props didn't pass and you had to define  alkobot instead of verisuma.

> 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
> either.
> -- 
> Peter C.
> It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
spoon-discuss mailing list