Re: [s-d] A different RFJ system (draft)

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Lepage wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
>> "David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Create the following rule:
>>> {{
>>> __Mob Justice__
>>>
>>> If at any time a player believes the state of this game to be in
>>> question or error, that player may request Mob Justice.
>>
>> Well, the "state of the game" is *never* in question or error. We just
>> as players might not be aware of what the state of the game actually
>> is.
>
> Not necessarily... unlike a computer program, the game actually can
> depend on subjective reasoning. For example, if a proposal passes
> that says "All players who aren't cool are evicted from the game",
> then the state of the game really is in question, because "cool" is
> subjective. We'd need to rule on what "cool" means.
>
> More relevantly, we could make a rule that allowed us to ignore
> actions that have some subjective property, such as "stupid". One
> might then RFJ on whether a given action was, in fact, stupid.

Well, even with something subjective like that, either the action *was*
stupid and it didn't happen, or it *wasn't* stupid and it did happen. It
most definitely did or didn't happen, and the state of the game is a
result of whichever it was. We just as players might not know which result
we're currently playing in.

I think that my issue was that it wasn't clear that it requires the
players to question the state of the game. The state of the game doesn't
question the state of the game. Or something like that. I don't think I'm
being very clear, and it's possible I'm making no sense whatsoever.

>> And if there's no remedy made, agreeing or disagreeing with it doesn't
>> do anything. I think you need a statement with something to the effect
>> that the Statement made in the Request For Mob is true or false for
>> the purposes of figuring out the current state of the game. Or
>> something like that.
>
> Sometimes an RFJ is just to determine how a rule should be read. For
> example, one might RFJ that "Rule XXX only applies to case YYY".
> There isn't any remedy needed, it's just clarifying an ambiguity in
> the rules.

Right. But as written, it just has us finding out that The Mob agrees with
the statement or not. I think we need something additional letting the
game know that the Mob is correct in its determination.

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