Donald Whytock on 4 Feb 2002 17:45:07 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 2/4/02 at 12:12 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> >Proposal 319/0: Why? Because I'm a
>> >cave man. (Uncle Psychosis)
>> No.  I'm still not clear why an administrative
>> action shouldn't be effective immediately.
>And I'm still not clear what you're talking about. This has nothing to do
>with actions, which are still timed according to rule 17. If the admin
>makes a mistake with one of his actions, or with one of his unofficial
>recognition things (like when he says "uin transfers 3 points to Rob" in
>his daily recogniser mail, for example), and accidentally reports
>something illegal as having happened, then my proosal would have made it
>so that, after 2 nweeks, his incorrect recognition became correct - pretty
>much like the current statute, but without all the huge broken flaws...
>Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at
>Win a ski trip!

Text of p319, the text you wanted to replace r129 with:

"2 Nweeks after the Administrator, in a Public Forum, makes any statement about the rules or game state, the rules and gamestate shall be altered what they would be had that statement been true at the time it was made, unless in the intervening time any player objects to the statement in a Public Forum, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules and game state shall apply. "

Okay.  So far we don't have a definition of "game state", so one could reasonably interpret "game state" to mean the collective set of conditions as established in the context of the game.  That would include, let's see...rules, proposals, CFJs, the player list, the players' dimensions and attributes and titles, the gremlins in existence, the locations and statuses of said gremlins, the grid and its contents...If that isn't all of it, it's certainly enough to work with.

So it's nweek x.  The following events occur:
- I bean Bean with Beano.
- Scoff proposes five proposals.
- Wonko moves one unit to the left on the grid.
- Dan pays off his 100-point debt to Luigi.

The Administrator recognizes all of these actions and says that Bean gets beaned, that Scoff's proposals have such-and-such numbers at revision 0, Wonko is now at grid location (a-1,b) and Dan is debt-free.

By the text you proposed, one of three things happen:

- Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid location and Dan's now-zero debt all come into existence, but two nweeks later they happen again: Bean is beaned again, Scoff's proposals are resubmitted or are at revision 0, Wonko is returned to (a-1,b) and Dan's debt is zeroed out; or

- Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid location and Dan's zero debt don't happen for another two nweeks, in which case Scoff's proposals don't appear on the ballot, Wonko stays in place, and Luigi breaks two of Dan's limbs because his debt isn't paid.

- Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid location and Dan's zero debt all happen, but they're not reflected in the game state in nweek x because the game state is still being altered by events reported by the Administrator in nweek x-2.  Which means someone looking at just the game state while planning actions is working with flawed data.

If you want there to be a Statute of Limitations on Administrator actions, why not just say so, rather than saying the game state is altered?  Or are you insisting the game state is something totally separate from what the Administrator says it is?  If that's the case, there's no authority on what the game state is, and every single action needs a CFJ performed to establish its legitimacy.