On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> While
> I'm not sure a phrase like "simultaneous but ordered" makes sense,
> it's one I might use in this situation.
Simultaneous but ordered makes perfect sense, but that breaks
when a later message goes back and modifies a previous one ("the
preceding sentence is...") Here's how we Used To Deal With It:
Rule 1527/3 (Power=1)
Timing of Multiple Events in One Message
Whenever a message contains more than one action -- such as a
notification, report, or other communication -- on which the
Rules place some legal significance, the actions in that message
shall be taken to have been sent sequentially in the order which
they appear in the message.
If a message attempts to perform multiple actions simultaneously
without explicitly stating a specific order for the actions,
then the attempt shall be considered ambiguous and without
effect if the gamestate would be substantively different for any
two orderings of the actions. For the purposes of this test, the
actual order the actions are performed in is not considered
substantive, but other differences may, at the discretion of a
judge, be considered substantive.
