Re: [s-d] [s-b] Agora & B

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I have notice the oracularities being mentioned, but the rules 
state just how the limitations if, any, to the number of proposals 
submitted, do not apply to oricularities. I suspected they were used 
for something along those lines, but, the rules do not say anything 
about their purpose, how and when they shall be used, etc... For a 
newcomer like myself, this is not too much information really.

Another point, really, is that the rules do not state whether 
oracularities that make it to a rule yield the same number of points. 
In my specific case, I went ahead with what I thought was quite a 
clever, yet not immediate, reasoning based on the existing rules. If 
the answer (which confirmed my reasoning) was to be made into an 
Oracularity, I'd feel a bit disappointed the priest is effectively 
reaping the rewards of my reasoning on the gorunds that he agreed to 
it, what do you think?








Le 26 nov. 07, à 16:42, Jamie Dallaire a écrit :

> There is the Oracularity mechanism which has not been used much 
> lately. I
> prefer oracularities to "automatic updates" because we need to somehow 
> agree
> on the wording and extent of the update. Also, consultations shouldn't
> become a way of fast-tracking proposals.
>
> Billy Pilgrim
>
> On Nov 26, 2007 7:42 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> I was about to ask that, since my last consultation (on how an Object
>> cannot
>> be a Player and a Faction) was deemed TRUE, on the grounds that a 
>> Faction
>> is
>> not an External Force, but yet this does not appear explicitely un 
>> rule
>> 5-3,
>> so I submited a proposal to include it explicitely there. Is this
>> redundant
>> with the answer to the consultation? should there be some automatic 
>> update
>> of the text of the rules to include implicit consequences of the 
>> existing
>> rules once this consequence have been aknowledge by a consultation?
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/07, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This brings up a point. I like the way Agora annotates the rule set
>>> with judgment decisions. Any interest in starting that here?
>>>
>>> - Hose
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spoon-discuss mailing list
>>> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-discuss mailing list
>> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>

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