Re: [s-d] Judgement draft

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

Maybe the judge should make a ruling that is only validated by a vote
of all the players?  Clearly with n players (as opposed to the three
in your example) it's going to take too long to obtain a true
consensus.  But I think that your analogy is a very good one.

On 11/25/06, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
>
> >> Well, that makes sense.  But I'm uggered if I know whether it works.
> >>
> >> What if the rule says "at point x in the game if y happened, give
> >> Antonio 10 points."  And you ask for a judgement on whether y
> >> happened.  And it goes in your favour.  I could (perversely,
> >> awkwardly) argue that since we're no longer at point x, the rules no
> >> longer grant you the points.
> >
> > I'd say that since point x happened, I should have gotten my points,
> > since the rules and the current resolved RFJs say so. If necessary I
> > could issue a new RFJ to that effect and see what happens.
>
> I wonder if the RFJ should actually have more game-changing power,
> and maybe require a consensus vote. The reason I say this is because
> many RFJs stem from overlooked bits of rules, or things that we
> didn't think through until somebody called attention to the fact that
> we were doing them wrongly.
>
> A monopoly analogy would be:
> I and three friends (Alfred, Barney, and Carl) are playing Monopoly.
> B lands on my hotel on Boardwalk, but just at that moment a nearby
> end table catches fire for no apparent reason. A flurry of activity
> follows before we resume the game, and when we start up again, we
> forget that B owes me all eir money.
>
> Two rounds later, I land on C's hotel on Ventnor Ave. I start to pay,
> but suddenly realize I don't have enough money.
>
> Now A points out that I forgot to collect from B. This is the "RFJ" -
> a player believes we failed to enforce a rule properly, and calls for
> confirmation and response.
>
> In this case, as with most "normal" games, we decide the issue by
> consensus. Most likely, we say "Ok, B gives me the money now, and we
> pretend I've had it all along". But it could be more complicated:
> maybe B already gave most of it to A, and maybe A would have gone
> bankrupt on eir previous turn. Or maybe B's strategy would have
> changed drastically had e known that e was nearly broke.
>
> In my experience, usually some sort of consensus is reached, that may
> or may not follow the rules strictly. For example, we might say that
> B will give me half of the money, which is enough to keep me from
> losing to C, but won't invalidate what B's been doing; we regard the
> lost half as a penalty I incurred for not collecting my own rent. Or
> maybe we'd say I lost all the rent because of this; I might object,
> but the three remaining players might outvote me and say I'm just
> being a poor sport. Or maybe we'll do something stranger: perhaps I
> get some block of "phantom money" that B then has to pay for in
> installments over the next few turns, or B and I are forced to sign a
> contract wherein B agrees to pay me some fraction of the rent e
> collects in the next few turns, and C takes that amount on credit
> until I can pay it off.
>
> By comparison, the B Nomic way, at least based on the past, would be
> to nullify the past two rounds and replay them. Yes, this is possible
> - the mailing list archives allow us to perfectly reconstruct the
> game at any time - but it's irritating, and may still be unfair to
> someone (for example, if partway through those turns I revealed some
> clever strategy that will be defeated now that everyone knows about
> it beforehand).
>
> Thus, I suggest that we need a method whereby a judge, or a panel of
> judges, or maybe even a consensus vote of the whole game, can
> "correct" the gamestate in whatever method is deemed fairest to all
> parties.
>
> --
> Wonko
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>


-- 
It's Like This

Even the Samurai
Have teddy bears
And even the teddy bears
Get drunk
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss