Re: [s-d] [s-b] Codae's refresh proto

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 14 déc. 07, à 04:07, Justin Ahmann a écrit :

>
>
> Replace the first sentence of Rule 1-10 with "A Game Action is any 
> action by an External Force that changes the gamestate."
>
> [[This seems more logical than the current definition.]]
>

The problem is that this risks to open some kind of self-collapsing 
definition. What about an invalid game action? it will not affect the 
gamestate. so it is not a game action in the first place? so all game 
actions are valid? which means the debate of validity will just shift 
to the game-action-ness of what happens? (it is, actually, already the 
case).

Then how would you define the "gamestate"? (I can see from there some 
poor attempt at trying to scam by saying that, after all, the content 
of a public forum is part of the state of the game, and as such posting 
to it alters the gamestate, so saying something is already a game 
action, but if you say you do somthing, then are you allowed to do it? 
and so on...)


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