Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: ais523@xxxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:36:05 +0000
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203
> 
> 
> Just because a scam's a scam doesn't mean it didn't work. I followed the
> general metarules of scamming (close the loophole behind you, don't give
> yourself too big a reward), and winning by scam is normally a legitimate
> tactic.
> 
> Besides, judging that something didn't happen doesn't actually mean it
> didn't happen. It's better for us to play in the gamestate that actually
> exists, then to cause incorrect results due to playing in an incorrect
> gamestate. Better still would be a proposal to make it come to the same
> thing either way (say, a proposal that recreates 5e57 if it doesn't
> exist and amends it if it does).
> -- 
> ais523
 
There is still nothing in the rules that says that requiring something means that it is possible to do it, only that it is required to make something else happen. If what is required is not allowed by other rules then the requirement cannot be met. Exploiting 5E10 doesn't work as 5E10 specifically says that game actions are defined by the rules. Contracts are not rules, therefore they could not authorise changing the rules.
 
So what has been created is a Thing (as defined in contract law) because it is a state which the rules do not allow and so only exists within the scope of the contract.
 
_________________________________________________________________
Twice the fun—Share photos while you chat with Windows Live Messenger. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/windowslive/products/messenger.aspx
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss