On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >> the game"? > tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the > reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a > dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question > every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing > for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a > little, from time to time.
I don't think the issue is the stock phrase or synonyms, it's the passive construction. The wording sounds like, to me, that I can do it by announcement and it will be effective, and then right afterwards I will lose 100 barrels. But if I don't have 100 barrels, it sounds like its still effective. The CAN isn't conditional on paying or being able to pay in the way that this is worded.
