Re: [s-d] [s-b] ais523's Refresh Proposal

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 20:00 -0700, Tyler wrote:
> I don't get this "Players can do this, but it violates the rules" deal. I
> mean, if the rules say you can't do it, doing it violates them, right? The
> way I read your rule changes is like this: "Players can do this, but they
> can't."
> 
> Maybe you should redefine "violate" before you use it like that. Or change
> it to "Players can do this, but any Player can put them in Jail for 2 nweeks
> or destroy 500 of their mack if they do." Something the plain man like me
> can understand.
> 
You're hitting on an argument that has been raging in Agora for quite a
while now. It's pretty clear that players can violate the rules by not
performing an action that the rules say they can perform; that doesn't
mean it happens. Likewise, this is a case of players violating a rule by
performing an action that is possible, but the rules say is a violation.
(The argument in Agora was about whether it was acceptable to
deliberately violate such a rule; IMO, the intention of such rules is
that accidental violations work but are illegal, and players who are
abiding the rules shouldn't violate them deliberately).
-- 
ais523

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