On 5/5/20 7:30 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 19:03 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
How is it a game-defined action? It's something that could have been
done by the game rules, rather than something done by a player; and
whether or not it happened, the rule in question would have been
repealed at the time the CFJ was called (thus even if you count actions
performed by rules, the game would no longer be defining the action in
question).
Perhaps we need a CFJ about what "action" means.
Done a bit of digging in the rules. There's no formal definition of game
actions. The three references are:
== Rule 101/17 ¶1 ==
Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of
these actions via Fora in order to play the game.
== Rule 2466/1 ¶2 ==
A person CANNOT act on behalf of another person to do anything
except perform a game action...
== Rule 2553/0 ¶1 ==
If a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action, has
been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously for at least
7 days...
The only entities described as being capable of performing game actions
are players. But I would argue that these use cases are not
comprehensive and do not constitute a definition and should not be
interpreted in a way that arbitrarily limits the scope of what a game
action can be.
--
Trigon, Speaker of Agora
