| Daniel Lepage on Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:05:49 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] proposal parser |
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:56 AM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From r1-10 again, "Text to the effect that "any player may do X" >> should be interpreted to mean that X is a Game Action;". >> >> So "Any player may revise a ... proposal ... by resubmitting it" >> means that you may take the game action "revise" and submit a new >> version of the proposal. The action that you're taking is still the >> act of revising a proposal, and so your message must specify that you >> are taking this action. > > I think that is a perfectly valid way of seeing the rules. But so is > mine... ::grin:: Then one of us ought to propose a clarification so that we know what we're doing. Or we can keep trying to convince each other indefinitely :D > I've no problem with the idea that your script would assign an ID, > BTW, rather than Peter doing it ... other than the fact that we'd > have to change the rules in order to make that legal, which would mean > making your script part of the rules... Think of the proposal script as a *really* fancy mail client, that takes inputs from two players at once :D Only Peter's input is implicit... :D >> What if we were to formalize Game Actions? Instead of using "any >> player may do X", we'd say: > > That would be doable. But it would be a very big change to the rules > indeed. Right now everything that happens in the game is a game > action. If we forgot to specfy some game action that currently > happens, we'd be in a bit of a mess. We're always in a bit of mess. That's what makes it Nomic :D -- Wonko _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss