Re: [s-d] Grand Chancellor?

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/12/07, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yeah, but in which gamestate does the fact of declaring the action
> invalid takes place? common sense might say that well,
> retro-validating one's action by altering the rule itself like the
> Chancellor did shoudl not be allowed, so that, so to speak, claiming
> invalidity of an action is outside the realm of either gamestate, as
> it should always be possible.
>
> But on the other hand, one oculd argue that the claim of invalidity is
> only possible in the gamestate where the rule is valid, end then... we
> have a chancellor.
I guess the claim of invalidity would only work in the *invalid*
q-gamestate, since in the valid one we're not allowed to claim it
invalid.  Therefore, there are two distinct and equally valid
gamestates that cannot be collapsed until the Chancellor collapses it
himself.  Well, under *that* interpretation of the validity rule.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss