Antonio Dolcetta on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 07:17:08 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] proposal: RFJ system, take 2

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> [[Since the RFJ system has, in my humble opinion, failed miserably,
> I agree and I think this is very good.  Better than the mob, in fact.
> A few points:  First of all I think that saying that the priest should
> "use the rules for inspiration" is a bit scary.  I can stare at the
> rules all night in a candle-lit vigil and that would be using them for
> inspiration; but it wouldn't mean that my judgement would have
> anything to do with what the rules *said*.  For me to be happy you
> would need to say that the priest must judge using the rules and only
> the rules (well, include past judgements too).

This was mainly for flavour, but I see your point. At the same time what 
we had before was insufficient, and whatever you put there, it's 
entirely possible for the judge to simply toss a coin anyway. And as you 
put it in a previous post, there's nothing anyone can do about it. At 
least this makes that more explicit. And there's something you can do to 
overturn bad judgments.

> Second, I'm not sure about interventions.  If the judgement is
> considered part of the rules, or even just a clarification of the way
> the rules are read, then it seems to me that does the job.  We haven't
> disproved that that bit of RFJs is broken - or have we?  You are going
> to get priests ruling FALSE when they agree with the statement but not
> the intervention, I think.  If you're okay with that, fine...

Yes you are right, interventions do complicate things a lot, and the 
priest having to rule FALSE if e does not approve the intervention was 
one of my objections to the original Mob draft. Hmmm let me think about 

> Finally, I do have a worry about zotting.  Say all this passes and
> someone - for example me - is asked to be a priest on a consultation
> that he feels isn't a valid one. So I ask the Oracle to zot it and e
> refuses.  What the zark am I supposed to do then?  According to his
> understanding of the rules the thing is neither true nor false.  And I
> can't resign.  ...maybe that's it; you do need stepping down after
> all.

The idea is that either the Oracle ZOTS it, or he reassigns it to 
another priest. maybe it's not clear enough. I'll amend.

spoon-discuss mailing list