On Monday 16 June 2008 6:39:52 Nick Vanderweit wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You'd have to have a good definition of "gamestate". > > If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it? > We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game, but if someone > wants to do something as part of a contract or simply as a joke and > this harms no one, why would we disallow it?
Well, some players would like to think that making arbitrary changes to the ruleset isn't explicitly prohibited. Agora traditionally encourages scams; depending on good faith for the rules to work is a generally bad idea.
