spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal: modification of 302/0, Subliminal ReligiousIndoctrination

[andy_harrison <andy_harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew G Potter wrote:
> 
> I propose modifying the second paragraph of Rule 302/0 to read:
> 
> "Anytime before the close of voting on proposals, a Player may make an RFJ
> accusing a another Player of Heresy by accusing em of being a Humble
> Disciple, and present the evidence.  If the Player is found by the Judge to
> be Guilty of Heresy, then the Judge shall award the accuser with 30 points. "
> 
> [[ As I saw it, the original rule had no provisions for deciding whether a
> Player had committed Heresy.  This proposal should treat Accusations as
> traditional RFJs; if someone thinks they'd be better handled by some other
> method, let me know and I'll adjust the proposal accordingly ]]

I disagree with this on a couple of points. 

Firstly, the purpose of RFJ's is to clarify a point of law. That is if
the Rules are ambiguous about something and Players cannot agree on the
correct interpretation, then an RFJ is used. An RFJ isn't something that
should be used during the course on normal gameplay.

Secondly, when I wrote the Rule I assumed that once the Heresy is
pointed out then it should be obvious. For example "Look, your proposal
would create a rule that says 'xxx' and in Genesis 1:2 it says 'xxx'
therefore you have commited Heresy". Given that none of us are running
for President (snigger) I would think that we'd play fair and admit it
if we get caught. When I was drafting the Rule I had initially put in a
bit that if the Player denies the Heresy then an RFJ should be used, but
I didn't feel there was any need for it as it was implied anyway (as in
the first point, if the two Players disagree on something, one calls for
an RFJ).

To be perfectly honest, I only wrote the Rule for a bit of fun. I
seriuosly doubt if it will ever come into play, I just liked the idea of
there being some back-door way of sneaking some points in.

--
The Kid