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

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> What is so terribly wrong with a passive statute
> of limitations that says that as of a certain point
> events and conditions in the past can't be
> objected to?
>
It doesn't work, that's what. We *need* to have some way of knowing whether something was legal or not. The "ideal" situation would be to have no statute, and just recalculate all our gamestate if we determine that we made a mistake 235 nweeks ago. Pragmatically, that's unworkable. Under your passive system, if we noticed a problem in the rules from nweek 3, and it's now nweek 238, we have *no* *way* of knowing what our current gamestate is.

>  Nothing's being changed, nothing's
> being altered, you don't have to belly-crawl
> through a french horn to prevent someone
> doing something malicious.
>
We *need* to change things if we want to have a statute of limitations. Either that, or we need to be able to CFJ something no matter when it happened. Or we could have a thing once a month (or whatever) where we stop the clock, the admin says "the gamestate and rules are precisely <this>", and (once we approve it) they're changed to that, with no CFJs being possible on things before the admin's reset.

> Fixing 129/2 but leaving it conceptually intact
> just isn't gonna cut it.  Replace objections with
> CFJs?  Fine.  I'll CFJ that every announcement
> made by the Administrator as of 20 days ago
> is a bunch of malarky.  It doesn't matter if
> that's true or false; the CFJ prevents the game
> state from being altered.
>
I considered making it 2 players, to prevent such antisocial spamming, but didn't think it would be necessary...

> Rather than have r129 in its present form,
> why not do away with it altogether and
> modify the CFJ rule instead, saying a
> CFJ can't be submitted for an action or
> event of more than x days ago?
>
Because events in the past affect events in the present. If we can't know what the past is, we can't know what the present is. Or, depending on the wording, it wouldn't work because we could just CFJ the parts of the current gamestate which were dependant on the past actions, and thus get ourselves back in the "235 nweeks of recalculation" position. We *need* to, at some point, change the gamestate to what we say, or we'll have to redo all our records 

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a