I don't think that would help much - as far as I recall, the recent liar's paradox wins all involved actions anyone could have taken by announcement.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 25, 2012, at 2:05 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 13:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Because it's far too easy. >> >> For example, using the very first paradox as an example, it was realized >> that by playing a sequence of cards, a paradox would be created. It >> turned out that at least three people independently discovered it and were >> quietly waiting to have the right cards to set it up, which made one of >> the cards desirable for otherwise unexplainable reasons. It was Fun. >> >> If it had just been: "Hey, if I play XYZ cards it's a paradox, therefore >> I win", it's not really fun. >> >> Also, in some cases, the point of illegality is to stop someone from >> doing something for a win. If the threat of illegality prevents >> someone from setting up a hypothetical; again, it's an effective >> block. > > Oh, I see. I think the best fix would be to only allow hypothetical > actions that the initiator could perform in the current gamestate, > rather than hypothetical actions by anyone else or hypothetical > gamestate. > > Perhaps you could word it in the form of promises, i.e. a win by paradox > would be if you had a promise (possibly/probably self-authored) that > would cause a paradox if cashed. That avoids gamestate damage, while > forcing the ability to actually set that damage up. > > -- > ais523 >
