On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote: >> 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). > > You'd have to have a good definition of "gamestate". >
If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it? We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game, but if someone wants to do something as part of a contract or simply as a joke and this harms no one, why would we disallow it? avpx
