Ah, but how have you met the requirements?

Vacuously, of course.  I see that Rodney has creatively decided to explain the fulfillment of the requirements vacuously, too!

(I realize this sounds like nitpicking, but it’s all intended in fun; feel free to ignore.)

“When a Traveller performs a set of Actions, e must post a weblog entry explaining the order of eir Actions and state how the requirements were all fulfilled.”

“state how the requirements were all fulfilled” seems to mean the same thing as “state how the requirements were fulfilled”.

Now, for “the traveller exists”, it would be trivial to state “I exist, fulfilling the requirement that the traveller exists.”  But for “none”, implying that there are no requirements, is it possible to fulfill a requirement, let alone state how a requirement was fulfilled?

With a more liberal interpretation of “be clear as to how requirements, if any, were fulfilled” or the like, there would be no problem with vacuous explanations.

Perhaps “the traveller exists” or at least a truism or a trivial requirement like “2 + 2 = 4” or “The player must include a the sentence: A is A. in the explanation post.” or the like?

Really, the line shouldn’t require explainations for how the requirement was satisfied unless a choice must be made to satisfy it (even then, detailing your choices should be enough).  I mean, once any choices are made, the requirement simply either is or isn’t satisfied.