On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 5:27 AM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 19:41 omd via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > A rule may state or imply that 'X is treated as if it
> > were Y', but this is considered an attempt to redefine X,
> > subject to the usual standards for definitions.
> >
>
> What's the purpose of this? Does that mean if there were a rule saying
> "George Washington is treated as if e were still alive", this would be
> considered an attempt to redefine George Washington?
Hmm... Good point. It shouldn't be. The point was to clarify that
even if the gamestate doesn't have a list of legal fictions, legal
fictions can still exist due to rules (which are themselves part of
the gamestate). Perhaps it should say:
A rule may define legal fictions to be used by other rules that
it takes precedence over.
Or perhaps Falsifian is right that it would be better to just remove that part.
