[s-b] Proposal : On oracularities

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

I submit the following proposal, entitled "On oracularities" :

{{
In Rule 2-2, under the section "Oracularities", replace
{
An Oracularity is a special type of Proposal. It may only be submitted 
by a Priest in the performance of his duties. If there are limits on 
the submission of Proposals, Oracularities are exempt from, and do not 
count towards, such limits.
}
By
{
An Oracularity is a special type of Proposal, designed to include in 
the ruleset the answer to a specific Consultation. It can only be 
submitted by the Priest who answered the Consultation, the Supplicant 
who submitted it, or the Unbeliever if there is one.If there are limits 
on the submission of Proposals, Oracularities are exempt from, and do 
not count towards, such limits.

The Oracularity should be an amendment to the existing rules, aiming at 
clarifying and explicitely state a consequence of those rules 
aknowledged by the answer to the consultation. As such, the wording of 
the consultation should be limited to the Consultation itself, stated 
as an affirmative or negative sentence. [[e.g. if the Consultation was 
"Can NBirds Fly?" and the answer YES/TRUE/CORRECT, the wording will be 
"NBirds can fly". if the answer was negative, the wording will be 
"NBirds cannot fly".]]

The wording may also include parts of the Supplicant's reasoning, 
and/or of the Priest's reasoning, if needed, to clarify the logical 
deduction that led to the conclusion. [[e.g. if the Consultation "Can 
NBirds fly" was answered NO on the grounds that according to rule A 
NBirds are made of stone, which is heavier than the air, and are inert 
object not able to move by themselves, and that according to ruel B 
flying is definied as being able to lift oneself in the air, and move 
above the ground without any external input of energy (no slingshot, 
catapult, cannon...) then the wording could read "NBirds cannot fly as 
they are made of stone (see rule A) and, being inert and heavier than 
air, they would require an external input of energy to move above the 
ground, which contradicts the definition of flying as per Rule B"]]

The Oracularity, in its proposal, must explicetly make reference to the 
Consultation it was  derived from. Consultations being pondered or 
whose Consistency is being contested cannot be made in Oricularities. 
[[However, once the consistency status of an Answer has been decided 
upon, the Consultation and its Answer can then be made in an 
Oricularity.

Any Player may object, informally, to the wording of an Oricularity, it 
is then advised (but in no way compulsary) for the Player who submitted 
the Oracularity to revise it until a correct wording is found.

The validation process then follows the one of a regular proposal. Its 
scoring is different, and is described in detail in rule 2-6.

[[Bear in mind that an Oracularity will still be voted upon like any 
regular proposal, so it is in the submitters interest to try and get 
the wording right and as close as possible to the spirit of the 
original Consultation in order for the Oricularity to pass...]]
}

Then in rule 2-6 Scoring :

regroup the existing text under the section "Proposal"

Add a second section, entitled "Oracularities", with the following text 
:
{
Whenever an Oracularity becomes Historical,
	- Each Player whose Final Vote on the Oracularity was not ABSTAIN 
gains 1 point.
	
	The points if the Oracularity pass fail will be split between Priest 
and Supplicant, provided the Supplicant stated clearly his predicted 
answer in the reasoning, and that his predicted answer matched the 
Priest's Answer.
If there is an Unbeliever (prior to the Anwer to the original 
consultation) and he clearely stated his predicted answer, and his 
predicted answer matched the Priest's answer, the points will be split 
between the Priest and the Unbeliever.

  	-If the Oracularity Passed, Priest and Supplicant/Unbeliever get 0.5  
point for each Player whose Final Vote on the proposal was FOR.
	-If the Oracularity was ever Won, Priest and Supplicant/Unbeliever get 
0.5 point for each Player whose Final Vote on the proposal was FOR.
	-if, after the summing of positive points, the players are left with a 
decimal number of points, their score gets truncated to the previous 
integer [e.g 2.5 becomes 2].
	-if the Oracularity failed and was never won, both Priest and 
Supplicant/Unbeliever lose 1 point each.

If the Priest's answer did not match the Supplicants predicted answer, 
or if the Supplicant did not clearly predict an answer, and if there is 
no Unbeliever to share the points with, the Priest become the sole 
Author of the Oricularity, and scoring is processed as it would be for 
a regular proposal.

}

}}
I am open to suggestion for a potential revision in wording, and 
scoring system.

The ruleset do not explicitely states that points have to be integers, 
but I assume it makes the game easier to maintain, so I worked the 
split around it. bear in mind that, if I read the rules right, a 
Proposal pass and won gives twice the amount of points than a proposal 
failed and won. And Proposal can be failed and won only in case of 
conflict/dependecy culling. which si bound to be rare for Oricularities 
unless they conflict or depends on proposal changing some of the rules 
that lead to the Answer. so most splits should be even, and, if not, 
well, you'll get slightly less points

I did not want to remove the penality of 3 points, but making it 1.5 
each was a bit tricky, so I rounded it down (effectively rounding the 
player scores up)  to compensate for the potential lost in rounding 
previously mentioned.

This will probably require a better explanation of the Unbeliver 
system, stating that when a player submits a proposal without 
mentioning an unbeliever, any player should be able to claim he is an 
Unbeliever (and, possibly, expose a reasoning) before the Consultation 
gets answered, so Unbelievers can have their share of the cake too..

The fact that, at the end of the day, everyone will still get to vote 
and votes will be tallyed in the normal fashion should prevent attempts 
at abusing the system by a tripartite plot between Oracle, Supplicant 
and Priest. Trying to come up with a bogus consultation and its answer 
to try an implement an abusive rule should be prevented.

Also feel free to submit a tidiness list, I'm tired and all I got on 
this client is a spellchecker in French, for some reason...

-- 
Will.



Le 26 nov. 07, à 17:25, Jamie Dallaire a écrit :

> True enough. Perhaps a proposal would be in order more tightly 
> specifying
> the scope of oracularities and also attributing points on some sort of 
> split
> basis between priest and supplicant. Good idea.
>
> Billy Pilgrim
>
>
> On 11/26/07, William P. Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>

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