spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

First, there seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding of what 129/2 does.  It does not change the game state of 20 days ago.  It changes the game state *now* to repair it to the best of our ability in accordance with what is determined to have happened 20 days ago.

This would have been essentially the same under 129/1 (and take note--129/0 is the original rule everyone keeps referring to, not 129/1, which is the revision briefly introduced by the Bugs In The System proposal before being overridden by UP's proposal).  

Under 129/1, you can't CFJ an action more than 1 nweek after it happens.  If, for example, you CFJ someone awarding emself 500 points and using them to buy Big Rocks for every square on the Grid, then when the award of points is ruled illegal, repairs must take place.  Either way -- 129/1 or 129/2, repairs are required (and let's avoid the Platonist question of whether we're repairing the game state or just its records).  We have to decide what to do with the points, what to do with the Rocks, and how to treat any moves / entities that may have been affected by the presence of the Rocks.  We're "looking back" either way, though -- that's not some special feature of 129/2.

Under 129/2, the repair scenario is that the judgement gets made, the Admin says "The game state is now thus," probably guided by whatever the judge suggests, and play continues unless someone objects to how the game state has been repaired.  Under 129/1, there's really no clear definition of how the repair would take place, but I assume under game custom it would work essentially the same way.

With all of that said, I do think the generalized wording of 129/2, while making for a rather succinct implementation of statute of limitations and emergency management in one fell swoop, does make it susceptible to rampant misunderstanding.  And I tend to think where misunderstanding persists, exploitation (accidental, deliberate, or both) is sure to follow.

Much as I prefer the terse, elegant solution, I begin to think that in this case the more clearly-delineated language of the BugFix proposal may be better for the long-term health of the game.  Everyone at least seems to share an understanding of what that one *does*, however much opinions may differ on how effective it is in doing it.

However, what I do like about 129/2 that was not provided in 129/1 is that it provides a clear mechanism by which repairs are implemented.  Under 129/1, our best indication is that all duties not otherwise specified in the rules fall to the Administrator.  Maybe that's enough, though.

--Scoff!