Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Proposal

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 7/4/02 at 2:38 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> {{
>> __Fixing the Past__
>> 
>> [[ Well, I was going to use this last proposal to do something with the
>> Scoring Gremlin, but it has occurred to me that would have been very
>> helpful
>> had we had some way of legalizing all the illegal actions taken by the
>> Adminstrator and M-Tek in regards to the proposal making process. The ideal
>> system would be one that we don't even notice - one that goes in and
>> changes
>> the gamestate to match what we think the gamestate is. The only time we'd
>> ever even realize that the system was working would be when realize
>> belatedly, as we have done now, that something we were all assuming was
>> legal wasn't. Thus I propose the following change to the Statute of
>> Limitations: ]]
>> 
>> Amend Rule 129 [[ Statute of Limitation ]] to read:
>> 
>> "10 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 to 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.
>> 
>> The Administrator may prevent the effects of this rule at any time, without
>> publicly notifying anyone.
>> 
>> This rule takes precedence over all other rules. "
>> }}
> 
> What does that second paragraph mean?  Among other things, I interpret it to
> mean the Administrator can ignore the player objections cited in the first
> paragraph without saying he is doing so or giving a reason for doing so.

My objection to an earlier, similar rule to this one was that it made no
provision for Administrative typos - if the admin accidentally marked down a
proposal as 53/0 instead of 853/0, havoc would be wreaked. The purpose of
the new bit is so that if e does so, somebody can point out three nweeks
later that this rule must have erased 53/0 and replaced it with the new one,
etc., and the Admin can say "Oops... Um... Actually, I was supressing the
rule at the time. I just didn't tell anyone."

But you're right, it could give the admin full power over the gamestate. Any
suggestions for a better way to word that?

-- 
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss