[s-b] Proposal: Clarify Challenges

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Proposal:  Clarify game actions

Amend Rule 1-10 (Game Actions) to read:

       A Game Action is any action defined as such by the rules.

       An Action Statement is a statement posted by an Outsider
       (hereafter its Actor) to a Public Forum (hereafter its Stage)
       that e performs a specified Game Action (hereafter its Act),
       along with any targets and/or parameters necessary for its Act
       [[for example, specifying a proposal in order to vote against
       it]], and optionally the number of times e performs it (default 1,
       must be a specific positive integer).  An Action Statement is
       valid if and only if the rules allow its Actor to Act as stated.

       Statement Time is the time at which an Action Statement reaches
       its Stage; multiple Action Statements in a single message have
       Statement Times in the order they appear.  Action Time is the
       time at which a Game Action is performed (default is Statement
       Time).

       The Actor of a valid Action Statement performs its Act at the
       Action Time.  The rules can also define Game Actions as being
       performed without an Action Statement.

       A rule to the effect of "any X may Y" or "X shall Y" generally
       means that Y is a Game Action, and may not be performed by
       non-X Outsiders unless otherwise permitted by the rules.

Create a rule titled "Disputed Game Actions" with this text:

       Challenge Cutoff is the end of the nday following the nday
       containing Statement Time.  If an Action Statement is not
       challenged before its Challenge Cutoff, then it is treated
       as having been valid, even if it would otherwise be invalid.

       An Outsider may challenge a specified Action Statement whose
       Challenge Cutoff has not yet expired.  If a consultation on the
       validity of a challenged Action Statement is answered Yes and
       becomes Pondered, then the challenger loses 10 Points.

Amend Rule 2-5 (Judgment) by replacing the two paragraphs beginning "If
the answered question is in relation to the validity" with this text:

       If the answered question is in relation to the validity of a
       challenged Action Statement, and the priest determines that the
       Action Statement was invalid and its Actor knew it at the time,
       then the Oracularity may contain a punishment for its Actor.

If Proposal 206 (Delayed Game Actions) was adopted, then create a rule
titled "Delayed Game Actions" with text equal to the paragraph added
by that proposal.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business