On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I support this appeal and thus appeal it. This should be considered
> as a fencepost problem; things that are considered "at the time of"
> are being considered in terms of continuous time (be it legal or real
> time). Instants in time that border two periods of continuous time
> are in neither, except by arbitrary definition. The arbitrary
> definition chosen should reflect game custom if it is not explicitly
> defined.
I was trying to go via customary English usage. Reflecting game custom
would probably have been more practical, though...
(Incidentally, I think we now have people arguing for FALSE/FALSE,
TRUE/TRUE, UNDECIDABLE/UNDECIDABLE, and FALSE/TRUE...)
--
ais523
