At 04:20 PM 2/13/02 -0700, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >?? I thought you were the one who thought there shouldn't be two sets of >negatives. :)
Oh, I still am. But like I said, it looks like you may be right that the two-layer approach is the only way to do what Clark wants. It seems that in general, most products' PI declarations will be just a list of things to close. In this case, I think it really does need to be a broad closure and a few specific reopenings. >The main reason is that now you've relied on a vague terms like "any game >rules" to identify OGC. I think it's easier to be specific about the >elements that are PI rather than relying what may be differing opinions on >what constitues a game rule. I realize that "any game rules" is broad (maybe too broad). But I think I would rather try to hash out with someone what that means than what constitutes, "any stories, descriptions, setting, etc." that some products have used in the past. :-) Sixten _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
