Re: [s-b] Consultation: declarations of invalidity

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

On 12/7/07, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I assign this Consultation number 69 and assign it to Priest Will.
>
> > >
> > Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >
> >> I submit the following Consultation and declare BobTHJ to be the Unbeliever:
> >>
> >> {{
> >> Does the Game Action of declaring a past Game Action invalid and thus
> >> causing it to have never happened require or force a retroactive
> >> change to the game state?
> >> }}
> >>

my answer is FALSE :

Reasoning : The validity of a game action is only confirmed after one
nday without contestation, as stated by rule 1-10. As such, declaring
a Game action invalid within that time span is not really considered a
retroactive change to the gamestate, as the action was not yet
confirmed to be valid, and has not altered the gamestate in the first
place

This raises of the question of the quantic state of the Actions during
the first nday after they have been posted, where they are sort of
neither (confirmed-)valid nor invalid.

Another problem mught be when a player posts an action, and in
reaction to it other players posts other actions, then the action is
declared invalid. what then become of the other actions? I think
BobTHJ's idea when he deifned this in his RP was that if someone were
to do a borderline invalid action, the first reaction fo other players
would be to contest it, rather than "fork" into an alternate universe
where that action would have happened by adding some reaction-actions.
Am I making this confusing?

I propose the following oracularity, (although I am open to any
alternative proposal on how to solve this particular blurryness of the
rules) :
{
At the end of rule 1-10, add a paragraph, reading :
{{
The gamestate is not considered to be changed until an action has been
confirmed valid, that is by not being contested within the allowed
timespan. As such, should subsequent actions based on a potential
gamestate change be submitted during that timeframe, their own
validity would be questioned as well if the validity of the original
action was.
}}
}

It seems I got tangled up in syntax there. If anyone has a better idea
or a better wording for this, feel free to let me know, I will revise
the oracularity. If I can.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business