Eric Gerlach on 14 Feb 2002 17:56:33 -0000

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

spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and much much more!


Okay.  With all that's followed out of this I think I've been convinced
that Rule 129/2 is still broken.  However, UP already showed that 129/1
was equally if not moreso broken.  So let's not try to go around breaking
the game more, instead let's try to fix it.

The facts as I see them:
- 129/2 is better than 129/1: 129/1 was seriously broken.  There was no
recourse to any action taken by a player as there was no mention of CFJs
in it.  If we go back to that, I'll just repeal all the rules after 100 
and wait a week for it to happen.  Yes, I'll be that much of a jerk (all
this back-to-129/1 talk is starting to piss me off, and I've had a bad

- 129/2 is flawed:  I think that the attempt to make it a paradox-solving
rule as well may have made it a little more powerful than it should be, as
people are currently pointing out.

- Yoda: "There is another..." ... way of determining game state that is...
CFJs.  So Glotmorf, we have one more way outside of the Admin saying
stuff.  So we need to make sure that CFJs are "untouchable" by the
Statute.  Then we're safe.

- We have a paradox recovery mechanism:  Therefore Rule 129 does not need
to try to serve that role anymore as well.

- Impatience is a flaw:  People are really rushing on this one.  As broken
as it may be, we're making steps in the right direction. Right now, we've
got a week to sit back and think.  Nothing is happening for another few
days.  So lets all calm down and discuss this first, rather than getting
way ahead of things with statements like "Well, I propose this as soon as
I can".  I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
*doing*."  So let's slow down in the here and now, there is no rush.

So what we need to do now is sit back, think, then make a proposal that
*fixes* 129/2, *not* one that goes back to the *broken* 129/1.  Here's my

<proposal_draft note="NOT A REAL PROPOSAL">
<title>Fixing the Statue... I mean Statute</title>
Revise Rule 129 in the following manner:

- Replace "20 days" with "2 nweeks"
- Replace "in a message to all players" with "in a public forum"
- Replace "any player objects to the statement in a message to all
players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
and game state shall apply" with "a CFJ is made naming the
Administrator as defendant which calls into question the statement, in
which case the rules governing CFJs shall apply"
- Remove "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
- Give it a Chutzpah of 8

What do people think of that?  Let's negotiate, try to fix this problem,
and whatever comes of this proposal I'll submit it as soon as the Clock is
back On.