I don’t see how recommending (Should: “is recommended that”) is better than permitting (May: “is permitted to”).

(I think “The gamestate is changed to reflect the results of the Combo once all of the actions are completed.” might be a better option, because there is no dealing with imperatives.)

‘Should X’ is different from ‘may X’ in how appropriate not doing X is.

I agree, but I don’t see a case where somehow being able to “retract” or not do the combo through the permissiveness of the “should” would be a desirable case in a “let go of chess piece” style of play.

Also, recommendation to do a thing doesn’t empower someone with the ability to do it. If I recommend you to eat a cookie a day, I’m not granting you any power or ability to be able to eat or acquire cookies, that would need to be separately granted (although we have CFJs for everything anyway but I don’t think that commanding to resort to those or other stuff is the intent here).

I think the core of our misunderstanding here is what ‘gamestate’ is: I’m interpreting the state to be it’s representation such that in doing a combo the gamestate is changed and the proposed sentence to change is recommending that the combo doer change the representation. You’re separating gamestate and representation and reading ‘should change the gamestate’ to not be a claim about representation?

Since I think this discussion should be taken into account in the proposal’s wording I’m retracting the proposal by editing it into a non-proposal. I don’t want to edit the wording of this now non-proposal and lose the proper context of its discussion.

>“I’m retracting the proposal by editing it into a non-proposal”

AUewhieuqwhiue. Weren’t you advocating for no-backsies? Why are you doing the retraction thing yourself?

That aside, yes, I’d argue that representation and gamestate are different things. Quickly deleted proposals had no software representation yet they still formally existed, and if I edit the rule page to say “cuddlebeam has achieved victory” somewhere, that doesn’t actually change the formal existence of the ruleset, its just bogus on the software representation of it.

It’s a bit Platonic lol, where the formal world is a bit of an intangible thing made up by our collective consensus and the GNDT/Wiki/other software are just visualizations of it but not the actual formal item itself.

However, I don’t mind gamestate meaning the software representation and such. It’s just a matter of choice for a name for one thing or another.

I was advocating for no take-backsies in the sphere of game-level actions. This is a much less meaningful take-backsie than revoking an inspection. And I still think deletions are certainly out of the question.