> Semi-related to this, has a unified way of writing rules been proposed?
The implementation of Mother May I was probably the single biggest example of formalization. Before that, the distinction between IMPOSSIBLE and ILLEGAL was very confused - and weren't themselves well-defined with all-caps - and it wasn't clear what various words (required, permitted, violated, authorized, etc.) mapped to IMPOSSIBLE vs. ILLEGAL. MMI was adopted in 2007 and had pretty big style effects. Outside of that, style has definitely drifted in fashion over the years! For example, when I joined, Notices were in fashion. The rules said things like: "A valid Notice of XXXX is a notice published by Officer Y containing the following info [...]. When a valid Notice of XXXX is published, the following effects occur [...]" Note the indirection, a player publishes a notice, the notice causes effects, the player is actually not performing the effects "by announcement", the action is the publication itself (for which the only permission you need is general permission to publish to the PF) and the "platonic" check that the notice was Valid by having the right information. Cantus Cygneus is the only holdover from that era I think. I still use it from time to time though (e.g. I used it in the recent Karma draft). It's useful when you want to have a single "act" containing multiple input requirements lead to a range of effects. There was no single decision to remove them (although MMI probably figured heavily in it finally falling out of favor). On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Semi-related to this, has a unified way of writing rules been proposed? A > sort > of standard? We're pretty much all definitions (like X is ABC) rights (you > can do X) > and conditional triggers (if X happens, then Y). > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I think a MAY is only ever truly useful as an exception, if there's a > default > "CAN but SHALL NOT/MAY NOT" in place somewhere else. > > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Ah, I see. I don't see how useful a solitary MAY is then aside from > being a stealth "CANNOT" in a way. > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > If it's SHALL and MAY, without providing a method for doing > it, if it's an > > > unregulated action that's OK imo > > > > By R2125 clause(1), putting in a SHALL or MAY automatically > makes it regulated > > > > (er, "restricted", was the title of the rule changed by the > regulated -> restricted > > switchover). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
