Card: Internal Affairs

Well, it seem pretty messy anyhow. A lot of additional complication for a limited card.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

@James:
I am not attempting to change political actions into directed actions.

Then the simplest answer is to stop using the terminology of directed actions.

You can have the effect you want without using the term "target", where "target" already has a specific meaning. Why is it so pants-wettingly crucial that you must use the word target, even though other similar effects don't - Yoruba Shrine
and Promise of 1528?

The term "target" clearly causes confusion. Other wordings don't, and are more consistent with existing cards.

Why are you so utterly convinced that target is the right term, when it overwhelmingly isn't?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

@Pascal:
It's actually really easy. Far less mess than you seem to believe.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

Ha.

Haha.

@Ohlmann: It would be more simple if I didn't have to justify everything about every possible OTHER card and placate James' fears that Chanjelin Ward would suddenly change and that doing this would create political actions. Or Pascal's issue with "Who is being targeted?" when I have previously had discussions with LSJ about the idea of targets.

@James:
Why are you so overwhelmingly against using existing plain-English terminology used in VTES in more general and modular way? Why is it that there must exist a specific term for everything on its own rather than applying the existing ideas to new scenarios?

Each time I have suggested something that would create a GENERAL idea that can be applied in SPECIFIC situations, you always argue "But there already exists this Specific Idea..." Why are you so focussed on narrow readings of all situations/cards?

Your insistence on bringing up specific examples as a 'rebuttal' without taking what I have written and actually applying it yourself makes this whole thing appear more confusing than it actually is.

So yes, TARGET is easy to define in an expanded version to cover previous LSJ rulings (See Rulebook 1.6.1.4 for the original definition, the CRR has no separate definition and there has already been a hierarchy of 'target' defined by LSJ). I did write a very simple definition for target (feel free to go back and actually read it) which is based on the rulings that LSJ has given about "What/Who is being targeted?" (No I can't remember where the damned things are, I tend to store this kind of stuff in my memory rather than remembering which Google-Groups discussion from 2+ years ago contained that debate). AND just to allay any of your fears that including a concept of TARGET would suddenly stop Political Actions being undirected, I added in a specific part at the end to exclude it. So the only difference between them would be to effectively add "effect or referendum" into the start

Rulebook 1.6.1.4

Proposed Modified Rulebook 1.6.1.4