On 6/16/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those would fall under "the rules do not have the power to prevent it" > in the new rule, the Soviet-style "everything not explicitly allowed is > prohibited" approach is distasteful nonetheless. Upon reflection, I > think it would also break contract-defined actions.
Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous terms such as "allowed" and, I suppose, "under certain conditions" (though my initial interpretation of that phrase was unpopular). --Ivan Hope CXXVII
