On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Without defining "game-defined", arguably contracts are part of the > game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by > contracts are "game-defined".
Good point. The spirit of the clause is fine to apply to contracts, but there would be a problem if you treat "game-defined" as broader than what "the rules define" (from later in the sentence). This could be avoided by switching "game-defined" to "rules-defined".
