> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism.
That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters because of this (R2466): > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > might be taken within a message. Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like the above) using the zombie testbed. > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - maybe that's the real problem here.
