I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
rules. I admit this could be made more explicit.
Without defining "game-defined", arguably contracts are part of the
game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by
contracts are "game-defined".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding
entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal.
I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined
action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e.
which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the
rules. I admit this could be made more explicit.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
opposed to such an explicit provision?
Hmm... you do have a point.
