Re: [s-d] Public statement about the recent approval scam

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't deny that 5E10 is an awkward heap of trivia, BTW, but I think we
> should leave cleaning it up to the proposal process incrementally to avoid
> breaking things. And because it's not a crisis (not that any of the "crises"
> we're in Emergency for really are, but oh well.)

Things are already broken about as much as possible tbh, as Rule 5E10
allows anyone to perform any game action-- I haven't seen any
arguments against this, though feel free to supply one.  (C Nomic
doesn't count because that scam failed for other reasons, as
mentioned.)  If this is indeed the case, the gamestate is totally
undefined.

Rule 5E10 just needs to be rewritten.  First, the redefinition of a
Game Action as just about anything makes no sense and has caused a
great deal of scamming and confusion.  I have not been able to
ascertain what the point of that was.  Second, it should be worded
such that it's not granting authorization on its own authority to
otherwise invalid Game Actions-- and no, I don't mean sticking a
paragraph to that effect at the end.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss