Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Because it bothers me, that's why.

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

comex wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Proposal:  Because it bothers me, that's why.
> 
> This bothers me: the Fifth Era already brought us the Agorisms of
> dependent actions and Decisions, the rules about each practically
> plagiarized from Agora-- compare Rule 5E32 to Rule 107 and Rule 5E11
> to Rule 1728/2124.

5E may be blamed for the term "dependent action", but the individual
types come from 4E21 and 4E22 (both of which date back to August
2007).  Granted, those may well have been cribbed from Agora as well.

What specifically bothers me about "as a Game Action" is that its
ordinary-language interpretation does a bad job of hinting at its formal
in-game definition.  "Game Action" sounds like it ought to apply to any
action relevant to the game, even if they're performed by e.g. sending
someone a private message.  (Hang on, non-Agorism revision coming up.)
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss