> > > 3) While we're at it, I think we should forbid inactive players from > > > performing dependent actions in general. > > None whatsoever. I agree with 3) as well. > But it's just this kind of loophole that could potentially lead to a > magnificent scam.
But it's equally possible someone could pull a scam involving making everyone else inactive and unable to become active again. As a general principle, I would favor the version that has spent less time being field-tested (so to speak) as an actual rule, and is therefore more Dangerously Uncertain. Therefore I support the amendment. There is _no_ cross-reference to all the assumptions implicit in the ruleset about players being able to take actions. Who knows what might come up? Um, just saying. Hypothetical. I totally don't have anything specific in mind at all.
