coppro wrote: > But the existing situation is broken; I have already noticed one paradox > but am awaiting a ruleset ratification before I initiate it to make sure > it works. In fact my model presented above doesn't work. Designing a > model that does work will take some effort, and will likely need to be > very technical to completely remove paradox (on an related note, a > proposal I'm writing up includes an entity which is a set of players; > currently it is its own basis; would anyone object to that wording?)
Are we certain that interpreting R1482p2s1 as "any other [general-purpose] means of determining precedence between [any two] Rules of unequal Power" isn't broken (other than allowing scams that were never actually attempted, and will soon be blocked)?
