Re: [s-d] Re: HH Actions

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 25, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:

> Chris Le Sueur <thefishface@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I argue that the outcome of neither of these Transactions can be
> > determined with finality. If the transaction were repeated with the 
> > same
> > starting gamestate, the outcome could be different.
> >
> > Discuss. ;-)
>
> Well, I'm going to argue for this scam, since I'm the one who tried
> it. :)
>
> Sure it can be. If it would be legal for one to take the Game Action
> as specified (and it is), and the assertion would be true at that
> time, then the actions occur. It can be determined with finality and
> certainty whether the actions succeed: we just have to try them in
> order to see. Rule 1-7 doesn't say that we have to know whether or not 
> they
> will succeed before we try them. And besides, how could one predict
> the future anyway?

Rule 1-7 talks about whether the actions "would be" legal and the 
assertions "would be" true. This implies that you have to be able to 
determine this *before* you can start taking the actions, which is 
impossible with the random actions.

> I was afraid something like this might happen when I wrote the
> transaction rule, it just hadn't occurred to me until recently that
> the key was in exploiting actions with random chance.

I thought that was the point of the bit about "determining with 
finality". What else does that prevent?

--
Wonko

"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever"
     -Anonymous

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