Re: [s-b] Consultation: declarations of invalidity

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

I claim that the Answer to Consultation 69 is INCONSISTENT with giving
it the business.

- Hose

On Dec 7, 2007 12:00 PM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/7/07, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I assign this Consultation number 69 and assign it to Priest Will.
> >
> > > >
> > > Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > >
> > >> I submit the following Consultation and declare BobTHJ to be the Unbeliever:
> > >>
> > >> {{
> > >> Does the Game Action of declaring a past Game Action invalid and thus
> > >> causing it to have never happened require or force a retroactive
> > >> change to the game state?
> > >> }}
> > >>
>
> my answer is FALSE :
>
> Reasoning : The validity of a game action is only confirmed after one
> nday without contestation, as stated by rule 1-10. As such, declaring
> a Game action invalid within that time span is not really considered a
> retroactive change to the gamestate, as the action was not yet
> confirmed to be valid, and has not altered the gamestate in the first
> place
>
> This raises of the question of the quantic state of the Actions during
> the first nday after they have been posted, where they are sort of
> neither (confirmed-)valid nor invalid.
>
> Another problem mught be when a player posts an action, and in
> reaction to it other players posts other actions, then the action is
> declared invalid. what then become of the other actions? I think
> BobTHJ's idea when he deifned this in his RP was that if someone were
> to do a borderline invalid action, the first reaction fo other players
> would be to contest it, rather than "fork" into an alternate universe
> where that action would have happened by adding some reaction-actions.
> Am I making this confusing?
>
> I propose the following oracularity, (although I am open to any
> alternative proposal on how to solve this particular blurryness of the
> rules) :
> {
> At the end of rule 1-10, add a paragraph, reading :
> {{
> The gamestate is not considered to be changed until an action has been
> confirmed valid, that is by not being contested within the allowed
> timespan. As such, should subsequent actions based on a potential
> gamestate change be submitted during that timeframe, their own
> validity would be questioned as well if the validity of the original
> action was.
> }}
> }
>
> It seems I got tangled up in syntax there. If anyone has a better idea
> or a better wording for this, feel free to let me know, I will revise
> the oracularity. If I can.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business