Sure that works too. I just think CAN is way overloaded so I prefer very distinct redirections with distinct names, but that's a style thing. Regardless, main point is that you need to amend R2466.
Impossible versus Illegal is a distinction common to boardgames, though it's not often recognized linguistically - it's the difference between "you can't play that card so just put it back in your hand" and "you can't peek at my cards but oops you did it anyway - penalty." On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > Can't we just amend rule 2466 "If the rules mean that someone CAN act > on behalf". Obviously this allow/permit language is troubling because > the illegality/impossibility distinction we have is really just not > used in the English language in general. You could say "parking here > is not permitted" but you could physically move your car into that > space. The double meaning only arises in our ruleset. > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to > > the opposite result of what you want! > > > > R2466 says if a rules 'allows' someone to act on behalf... that they > > CAN by announcement [with these results]. The current R2532 directly > > references this text by using 'is allowed' to act on behalf. Not > > completely clear given that 'allow' can have many meanings, but it's a > > direct mirror of the language used to invoke the full R2466 process. > > > > Now let's say you replace that with a CAN. But then you add some version > > of "a player SHALL NOT make a zombie do ILLEGAL actions" as we've been > > discussing. So the result is a player "CAN but SHALL NOT" have a zombie > > do ILLEGAL actions. > > > > Which means (by Aris's original arguments) that a player is not > > "allowed" to perform ILLEGAL act-on-behalf actions, because 'not allowed' > > implies "MAY NOT/SHALL NOT" if interpreted by natural language. So the > > R2466 methods of doing it by announcing doesn't work, because the player > > "isn't allowed" to perform them. Which means e CANNOT perform illegal > > actions and illegal action attempts automatically fail. > > > > And so we're right back where we started. > > > > > > My suggestion is a whole new and clear and unique term of art. In the > > past we've used "Power of Attorney" but others are possible. So > > something like: > > > > In R2466: "If a Rule grants Power of Attorney ... then the player CAN > > act on behalf by announcement with these results" > > > > And R2532: "A zombie's master is granted Power of Attorney over the > > zombie". > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> The thing about using the "is allowed to" language instead of CAN is > >> that it triggers the whole method in R2466, that includes a CAN, > >> specifies how to do it, and includes legal consequences. > >> Putting a CAN here without all that language doesn't have a method > >> (by announcement or what?) or explain the complicated legal > >> consequences. Either stick with "is allowed to" here, or clarify > >> R2466. > >> > >> This also fails to make a consequence to Masters for illegal behavior, > >> so I would vote against it on those grounds. > >> > >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > >> > I create the following proposal. > >> > > >> > Title: Clearer & Better Zombies > >> > AI: 2.0 > >> > Text: In rule 2532, Zombies, replace the text "A zombie's master, if > >> > another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the > >> > zombie's agent) to perform LEGAL actions." with "A zombie's master, if > >> > another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform actions" > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > From V.J. Rada > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
