Re: [s-d] [s-b] Reassignment

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 07:46 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> As I understand it, the argument for YES is that a rule saying "X may
> Y by Z" does not thereby say "X may Z".  Note that, when Z is not
> defined by the rules, then 5E57 explicitly designates it as a Thing
> (even if it's an abstract piece of contract-defined gamestate that
> doesn't use an ownable-object-like metaphor) and allows a contract to
> create it.

The problem is that even with that argument, Z still becomes a "activity
specified by the Rules that changes the state of the game". Yes, I think
that this is a serious bug in rule 5e10.

Incidentally, I've been thinking about the relevant part of rule 5e10,
and I think some wording like this might be better:
{{{
The rules may state that certain things are possible. If the rules state
explicitly that some change to the game state is possible, but do not
state a mechanism for performing the change, then the appropriate
mechanism is as a Game Action. Rules may also specifically state that
changes can be performed as a Game Action.

[Add definition of how to do a Game Action here, and also the other
random stuff that doesn't fit in rule 5e10 but has been put there
anyway]
}}}

-- 
ais523

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