On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, ais523 wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 3. I think instead we should get rid of "hypothetical" win conditions. > > Basically, if you can set it up "for real" you should get it, but just > > saying "If ABC were true, then it would be undecided" shouldn't be enough. > > I don't see what this gains. Allowing hypotheticals lets people test > their paradoxes without actually ruining the gamestate, and it should > come to the same thing either way. (There are also potential moral > issues around paradoxically criminal actions.)
Because it's far too easy. For example, using the very first paradox as an example, it was realized that by playing a sequence of cards, a paradox would be created. It turned out that at least three people independently discovered it and were quietly waiting to have the right cards to set it up, which made one of the cards desirable for otherwise unexplainable reasons. It was Fun. If it had just been: "Hey, if I play XYZ cards it's a paradox, therefore I win", it's not really fun. Also, in some cases, the point of illegality is to stop someone from doing something for a win. If the threat of illegality prevents someone from setting up a hypothetical; again, it's an effective block. -G.
