Elliott Hird on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:39:46 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)



On 23 Jan 2009, at 16:25, Jamie Dallaire wrote:

I think oracularities might be nice too. But there are many ways of
implementing changes that the priest can use (proposal, tweak, approve). Of course, they are slower or more prone to objection that were oracularities,
so these might be useful to get back.

But I think that those are separate questions. As is, a consultation like 168 should be answered SOMETIMES rather than NO, technically. That doesn't change the fact that the priest should submit an oracularity to fix the problem (in the case of 168, of course, it's not really a problem...). An
oracularity is appropriate even if the answer isn't forcibly wrong.

Thing is, with "the judgment is true" we build up precedence and end up
like Agora/real world legal systems... which is no fun, as newbies should
be able to read the ruleset and PDs and know everything they need to.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss