Re: [s-b] Consultation: Consultation Answer Effects?

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

I claim this to be Inconsistent. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this is too
radical a change for me to accept via Oracularity. I would rather it be a
matter to be voted upon. I also have a few complaints with the wording of
the Oracularity:

I would say that it is too difficult to determine what game state the answer
should create. It is retroactive simulation that depends not only on the
Answer, but also on the Reasoning, because of Wooble's wording. These can be
confusing and even self-contradicting, without being clearly so to the
casual consistent claimer. I think it is better to expect the Oracularity to
take care of any necessary game state clarifications, and make the Answer
(which isn't actually a Game Object at all, since Rule 18 doesn't make it
so) only have power to resolve problems implicitly, by persuasion and not by
force.

I hope others will make claims with my arguments in mind.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I submit the following Consultation, and, as the MoQ, give it the number
> 129
> >> and assign it to Priest Wooble:
> >>
> >> "Does a Priest's Answer of YES, NO, or PARADOX to a Consultation
> assigned to
> >> him have any effect on the game after the Consultation has become
> pondered,
> >> assuming there were not more claims of Inconsistency than claims of
> >> Consistency?"
> >
> > I Answer this Consultation YES.
> >
> I claim this to be consistent.
>
> BobTHJ
>  _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



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