comex wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute >> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G. > > On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what > looks like some controversy over the ruleset. Good luck sorting it > out.
On the plus side, there doesn't seem to be much actual ambiguity. (Controversy, yes, but my opinion on the controversial point is that there's no ambiguity.) The text of the proposal, read literally, is perfectly clear. It creates some Rules, sets the power of some of them, and sets the AI of others. The resultant game state is a little screwy, sure, but at least we know what it is.
