[s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

The objective of this refresh proposal is to quickly remedy the
problems with my previous RP. Honestly, a few minor tweaks is all that
is required. This is not an official submission, merely a draft.

Refresh Proposal (Draft)
{

[[Issue: panic buttons & emergency state unknown?
Fix: allow synonyms for activation of panic buttons, validate past
attempts to press/depress, and therefore validate the commonly assumed
gamestate.]]
Amend rule 0 by inserting after the fifth paragraph:
{{
Synonyms for the above actions have the same effect as taking those
actions as long as the declared action is unambiguous in meaning
}}
The above amendment to rule 0 has a retroactive effect, causing all
unambiguous declarations of a player's individual panic button state
changes within the past month to be valid when in compliance with
other aspects of rule 0.

[[Issue: controlling the game through invalidating other player's actions.
Solution: require 2 support for an invalidation. Protect all aspects
of the Consultation system from spontaneous invalidation.]]
Amend rule 1-10 by replacing the paragraph beginning with:
{{
Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid
}}
with the following:
{{
As a Game Action with 2 Support, any Player may declare any Game
Action which has occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless
that Game Action is one of the following:
* Declaring another action invalid
* Submitting a consultation
* The Oracle assigning a Waiting Consultation to a Priest
* A Priest answering a Waiting Consultation to which they have been
assigned and not removed (and possibly submitting an Oracularity)
* The Oracle Zotting a consultation
* Any player making a claim of consistency or inconsistency on a
consultation when permitted to do so by the rules.

An action which has been declared invalid is treated as if it never
occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
submit a consultation about the validity of that action. When that
consultation becomes Pondered, if the priest determines that action is
indeed valid, the Player who declared it invalid, and each Player who
supported that declaration loses 10 points. However, if the priest
finds that the action was indeed invalid, the actor loses 10 Points.
}}
[[Issue: Spamming consultations regarding clearly invalid actions
Solution: point penalty (see above). Impose limits on consultation
submission (outside the scope of this refresh proposal)]]

[[Issue: Arbitrary zotting of consultations by the Oracle (judicial activism)
Solution: 2 Support required for zotting (outside the scope of this
refresh proposal)]]
}

Comments gladly accepted.

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