On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. > It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just > incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is > game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding > entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal.
I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas > here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified > somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and > something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be > opposed to such an explicit provision? Hmm... you do have a point.
