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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:

> 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 still disagree. It's not just that we can't tell if it's stupid,  
it's that whether or not it's stupid isn't yet defined. As such,  
whether it happened is indeterminate until we define it to be stupid/ 
nonstupid. Also, it's possible that the issue may never be decided -  
perhaps just after the action is taken, an unrelated action crashes  
the game and we start over without ever examining the action.

> 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.

I agree that it could be worded more clearly; what Dave really means  
is that Mob Justice happens when a player believes either that the  
state of the game should be different than it is widely accepted as  
being, or that the state of the game cannot accurately be determined  
without more consideration.

>>> 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.

This is a tricky point - what if the Mob is wrong? I have certainly  
seen CFJs where after the fact a Judge admitted that e was wrong,  
because of a rule that e hadn't noticed (and which nobody else had  
pointed out).

What a CFJ/CFI/Call of SHENANIGANS/RFJ/Invocation of Mob Justice  
seeks is a consensus on the rules; this isn't necessarily binding,  
but is accepted as a matter of convention. A player could decide to  
reject this; it would be a lot like one player proclaiming that the  
rules to Monopoly allow em to steal from the Bank, or some such  
thing. What happens in that case is that the other players ignore em  
and keep playing without em. But it's perfectly ok if five minutes  
later, the players decide that stealing from the Bank ought to be  
allowed and they let it happen.

So basically, I feel that it's enough that a decision is made. We  
don't need to specify that this decision is binding, or that the  
meaning of the rules is implicitly altered to conform to the ruling,  
because that doesn't need to be true. We just need to agree amongst  
ourselves that there's no point in arguing about it further unless  
new evidence comes up.

-- 
Wonko

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