Re: [s-d] [s-b] Murphy's refresh proto v1.2

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 10, 2007 9:31 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Billy Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > To me, the main issue to fix is a part of the rules that was brought
> about
> > by the refresh proposal from last nweek, i.e. the ability to declare
> game
> > actions invalid with relative impunity.
>
> I kept suggesting an alternate interpretation of 1-10 that would not
> have led to this problem.  I suppose it's part of the local culture
> that the majority preferred to continue lobbing grenades.  :)


Ah yes, I remember that. And I did like your interpretation, as it is true
that nowhere in the rules does it say that my (or anyone else's) declaration
of invalidity actually makes an action invalid. True enough. However, the
rule is written such that (I now realize...) your interpretation would make
it as, if not more, disastrous than did the interpretation that everyone
seemed to stick to. That is, with no way for any action I pose to actually
be made invalid, and with any actions I pose automatically valid unless made
invalid, regardless of what the rules say about my actions, then there would
be no reason why I could not simply say "As a Game Action, I banish all
other players from the game, eliminate all modes of gaining access to
playership in the game, and win the game" and ACTUALLY have this happen.
Admittedly, that would be pretty boring for all of us. And then we'd be
forced to go play monopoly or something.

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