Re: [s-d] [s-b] proposal: RFJ system, take 2

[Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> This was mainly for flavour, but I see your point. At the same time what
>> we had before was insufficient, and whatever you put there, it's
>> entirely possible for the judge to simply toss a coin anyway. And as you
>> put it in a previous post, there's nothing anyone can do about it. At
>> least this makes that more explicit. And there's something you can do to
>> overturn bad judgments.
> 
> You're right.  But there might be *something* you can do to prevent
> judgements that don't have anything to do with the rules: you could
> *require* that the priest give reasons for his judgement.  Then if it
> gets to the consultation stage, the players have a chance to see
> whether the reasoning is sound.  You might not agree with a TRUE or a
> FALSE; but its still possible that it is a valid interpretation of the
> rules (just not the one you would have chosen).  If you can see the
> priest's reasoning then that makes it easier I think.
>

I don't know, I'm scared of Nomic players, requiring people to write 
down their reasoning might actually provoke them into writing stuff like 
"I gave a look at the rules, they were too complicated so I just tossed 
a coin" or "Vote for Bob" just to prove they can.






_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss