On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 14:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 10/5/2021 2:18 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > One other thing to note is that golfed rule text can be quite hard to > > read and understand, which might not be great for easing new players > > into the game; but the existing rules aren't all that much better in > > that regard. > > Funnily enough, this was the losing golf entry because we went for > legibility. The other team really condensed the existing rules text using > a lot of symbols, and won. Our team rearranged the whole rule for the > sole purpose of legibility, thought it read better than the original (we > could be very wrong of course), and couldn't bring ourselves to trim the > legibility out of it. So we lost at golf, but proposed the rule change :).
One concrete example is that I had to read this three times to work out why it didn't just let people perform any action they wanted as a dependent action, even when the rules didn't otherwise give permission. (It's the same reason as in the existing rule: it works by implying act-by-announcement text into the rules that define the action, and there are no other CANs for the action itself anywhere, just for support/object/intend. The definition of "Tabled Action" makes that much less clear; the trick is that nobody ever actually performs a tabled action, which is more than a little confusing.) I think that might be the main sticking point, though, so we could perhaps clarify it with further rule changes in the future. -- ais523
