On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a > crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the > Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is > this a valid reading, and is this intended?
I'd consider that a definition rather than state. But even if it was state, my intent was that "consists of altering Rules-defined state" (combined with the example) would limit the clause to the action of altering state itself, rather than any action that merely indirectly results in state being altered. However, the negative reception suggests that the new language is not as clear as I thought it was. Back to the drawing board...
