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

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:24 PM, <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:20:44 -0500, Jamie Dallaire
> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> CONSISTENT.
> >
> > why wouldn't we allow "I find" when we keep allowing messages like the
> > above??
>
> I am not convinced that the above works, but Rule 5e10 prevents us from
> recalculating all the results of all Consultations that erroneously treated
> such "claims" as valid.


I really don't think 5E10 does that. Recalculation wouldn't mean changing
gamestate retroactively. It would mean admitting that we were wrong (which I
don't think we were, see below), and then finding out what proper gamestate
actually is.

I don't think we were wrong to treat posts like "CONSISTENT" as claims of
consistency because just like we allow "Proposal: blablabla" as
"submissions" without including the word submit because posting a game
document to the PF amounts to "submitting" in natural language, labelling
something "consistent" without saying that you claim it to be consistent
still amounts to claiming that it's consistent. I think.

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