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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 7, 2007 10:00 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't know that you can revise it. However, personally I don't think
that this is the solution either. What happens to votes cast on the
last day of the voting period? What about objecting to an action? In
my estimation, every action needs to be valid until it is declared
invalid, at which point the gamestate is retroactively changed to
reflect that invalidity. Note that this is the way we have handled
things all along. My refresh proposal was designed to limit this
retroactive calculation to a maximum of one day. In retrospect, there
are a few flaws with my design, but I don't think this is the way to
solve them.

Due to my above arguments, I am forced to declare this INCONSISTENT.

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