On Sun, 5 Aug 2012, Ed Murphy wrote: > I do think that this makes it too easy to set up infinite chains and > get turtles out of them (e.g. by fudging someone's posture, which has > no LFD-style escape clause), but that probably needs to be fixed via > legislation at this point.
I think in this case the best fix is in the mechanism; to forbid a promise- begun chain to call a promise previously called in the chain (i.e. the first attempt at a loop fails). Although I suppose this could be defeated by promises that create new promises. I don't think there's other mechanisms that allow looping in the rules currently, and it was a limit that was debated back when promises were enacted. Another protection could be in the generic Switches definition; if a switch's state cannot be determined with reasonable effort, it is in the default state. Though this has a disadvantage of allowing players to switch back to default by making an infinite chain, when otherwise they wouldn't be permitted to. -G.
