This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding
entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
