On 6/9/20 3:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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.
>
>
If it were to say "If e has at least 100 barrels, a player CAN win by
announcement, but it will cost em 100 barrels." I think that would work
as you intend it.
