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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorta split on this one. I like Wooble's fix a lot as it addresses an
issue we've been muddled with for a long time. On the other hand, I am
uncomfortable with the bit saying "for the reasons given in the Priest's
reasoning", for the same reason Ty-Guy6 pointed out above. So.... I'm
thinking either let this one be consistent and try to legislatively remove
that clause, OR call it inconsistent and legislatively enter the same
without the clause...

I guess in its current form the fix is better than what we've got right now
anyway, so:

I declare the Answer to Consultation 129 to be Consistent.

BP

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ok, I think I've been won over. My arguments are somewhat nitpicky, and
> Wooble's solution is probably better than what we have now. I still don't
> like how the new rule section might create disagreements about the
> interpretation of the effects of Answers, and I still don't like how
> Answers
> aren't game objects. But I'm ok with moving forward on this, and seeing how
> it goes.
>
> I would claim Wooble's Answer to Consultation 129 to be Consistent, but I
> can't because I'm the Supplicant. So it's 1 to 1 right now.
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > If the Answer would actually need to change the gamestate, or if the
> > Priest's reasoning doesn't consist of a summary of the facts about
> > what actually happened in the game, it should be declared
> > Inconsistent.  I believe as it's written the Oracularity should lead
> > to consultations on matters of fact that might be unclear being easy
> > to resolve, and consultations on matters of law having no effect
> > outside of their own oracularities since all the answer can do is give
> > an instantaneous picture of the truth of the question.
> >
> > Of course, I'd also be more than happy to legislatively redo
> > consultation reform; I'm not convinced we got it perfectly right the
> > last time or that this oracularity would fix the current problems.
> > --
> > Wooble
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
>
>
> --
>  -Tyler
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business