> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:04 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nope the text for CAN is this: " > > CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's > all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument > that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
What the esteemed G. is saying is that enabling an action, without restriction, is dangerous, and applying that to every single place in the rules where MAY is present needs much more thorough review. Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in any way at all - including a-d posts, private messages, or even in the secrecy of ones’ own head. An action which CAN be performed by announcement is more limited, and is only successful if done via a public forum (r. 478, “Fora”). Existing rules that use CAN are, generally, fairly careful of that distinction. Rules that don’t use CAN aren’t. Simply tacking “and attempts are successful” onto MAY means that rules such as r. 2467 would permit unpublished, secret attempts to perform the action to succeed, making the game state in large part unknowable. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
