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

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 7, 2007 12:16 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

This is invalid.  The Unbeliever may not make a claim as to
consistency.  Much to my regret, since that makes 2 of us who think
this is inconsistent and neither of us can make a claim. Of course, we
can always declare the game action of answering this Consultation to
be Invalid, which while outside the spirit of the rules would appear
to be legal.

I add the argument that Rule 1-10 says "Game Actions occur upon
reaching the appropriate fora".  If they have no effect on the
gamestate at this time, then what does "occur" mean?
-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business