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

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> 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.

You're right.  But there might be *something* you can do to prevent
judgements that don't have anything to do with the rules: you could
*require* that the priest give reasons for his judgement.  Then if it
gets to the consultation stage, the players have a chance to see
whether the reasoning is sound.  You might not agree with a TRUE or a
FALSE; but its still possible that it is a valid interpretation of the
rules (just not the one you would have chosen).  If you can see the
priest's reasoning then that makes it easier I think.

My 10c anyway.


> 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.

Nope, you're quite right - it's there and I missed it.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss