| Wonko on 5 Mar 2002 03:02:39 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| spoon-discuss: Another Brief |
Below is what UP sent to Spoon-Business, that turned into p377. <proosal> <title>So damn ugly.</title> <body> @@@ Amend rule 129 by replacing the current text with the following MONUMENTOFGRANITE-delimited text: MONUMENTOFGRANITE 20 days after the Administrator, in a message to all players, makes any statement about the rules or game state, the rules and gamestate shall be altered what they now 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 message to all players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules and game state shall apply. This rule takes precedence over all other rules. MONUMENTOFGRANITE [["It's simple, succinct, and elegant. What more could you want?" - Bean]] [[Now with added lack of dependence on other rules. Slightly more redundancy, but slightly more ability to get us out of a broken game / paradox situation.]] @@@ </body> </proosal> The statements "I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 passed. I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 received six affirmative votes. What the hell...I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 was recognized and part of the ballot." mean that "the usual methods" should determine whether the statements are true. The usual method is, if one sends a proposal to business, it gets recognized and goes on the ballot. If six people vote affirmatively for it, it recieves six affirmative votes. If it recieved more affirmative votes than negative votes, it passes. All the objections do is turn off rule 129, so it doesn't affirm the admin's statments. But that's okay, 'cause the statements were already true. The whole point of rule 129 is so that if the admin makes a mistake, like allowing someone to do something that's technically illegal (for instance, if someone w/ the sushi takes an unsushied action), then if nobody notices within two nweeks that the action was illegal, it becomes legal. But if someone says "Wait, e can't do that!", then 129 doesn't make it legal, and the fact that it is illegal kicks in. The reason we have that rule is so that if Scoff! throws a Gremlin w/out sushiing it, and someone else catches it and it gets chucked left and right, and nobody notices that it was never legally thrown in the first place, then we act as if it were legal. You'll never see a positive result of 129, because it only kicks in if nobody notices. Although I contend that r129 does work as it is supposed to, I still think there must be a better way to implement it. For one thing, the current system, assuming an error is caught just before the end of the 2 nweek period, and the case is appealed, could take over three nweeks to resolve an issue. I'm not sure how things could be arranged to work faster without compromising things, but I'm sure there must be some way to do it. I'll think about it. --Wonko "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. " - Galileo Galilei