On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 17:11 -0500, omd wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the absence of any useful > > self-ratification of the statement, I agree with the caller that, given > > the circumstances at the time, it would be far from trivial effort for > > anyone to expand the abbreviation for a repeated effort, and thus the > > action is ineffective for lack of clarity (Tiger would have had to > > specify the amount in more detail). > > I intend to appeal this with two support. Although I don't > particularly like this fact, it's game custom to allow a conditional > action if a person with perfect knowledge of the gamestate could > reasonably evaluate the condition, even if no actual person could do > so at the time. > > For example, nobody has challenged Wooble's recent post: > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the rebellion failed, I pay a fee to destroy my 2 Rests (if it > > succeeded, I have no Rests) > > (This could arguably be gloss for "I do X; this might fail", but there > are plenty of other examples which are harder to classify.)
It seems to me that game custom is arguably to allow such things to reduce ambiguity, but not to allow such things to create it. (I'd be interested to see some examples which aren't along the lines of "I do X, but this might fail".) -- ais523 _______________________________________________ Agora mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
