Re: [s-d] [s-b] Amended proposal: Legal Mode

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I can't help but think this is the wrong approach - this rule is complex
>> and hard to understand, whereas if we go the other way, and state that
>> only those actions explicitly permitted by the rules are legal, then all
>> this complexity goes away.
> 
> Well, firstly, I don't think any rule with only two paragraphs - one
> of which is a simple sentance - can really be said to be hard to
> understand.
> 
> But in any case you will note that I made two mutually exclusive
> proposals.  In fact I just think that we need to have one of them; I
> don't much care which.  Right now I think that there is room for
> massive confusion.

I suppose I mostly don't like the fuzziness of the word 'pertaining'... 
What's wrong with the simpler approach of only allowing game actions 
permitted by the rules?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss