Re: [s-d] [s-b] Agora & B

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

True enough. Perhaps a proposal would be in order more tightly specifying
the scope of oracularities and also attributing points on some sort of split
basis between priest and supplicant. Good idea.

Billy Pilgrim


On 11/26/07, William P. Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have notice the oracularities being mentioned, but the rules
> state just how the limitations if, any, to the number of proposals
> submitted, do not apply to oricularities. I suspected they were used
> for something along those lines, but, the rules do not say anything
> about their purpose, how and when they shall be used, etc... For a
> newcomer like myself, this is not too much information really.
>
> Another point, really, is that the rules do not state whether
> oracularities that make it to a rule yield the same number of points.
> In my specific case, I went ahead with what I thought was quite a
> clever, yet not immediate, reasoning based on the existing rules. If
> the answer (which confirmed my reasoning) was to be made into an
> Oracularity, I'd feel a bit disappointed the priest is effectively
> reaping the rewards of my reasoning on the gorunds that he agreed to
> it, what do you think?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 26 nov. 07, à 16:42, Jamie Dallaire a écrit :
>
> > There is the Oracularity mechanism which has not been used much
> > lately. I
> > prefer oracularities to "automatic updates" because we need to somehow
> > agree
> > on the wording and extent of the update. Also, consultations shouldn't
> > become a way of fast-tracking proposals.
> >
> > Billy Pilgrim
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2007 7:42 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I was about to ask that, since my last consultation (on how an Object
> >> cannot
> >> be a Player and a Faction) was deemed TRUE, on the grounds that a
> >> Faction
> >> is
> >> not an External Force, but yet this does not appear explicitely un
> >> rule
> >> 5-3,
> >> so I submited a proposal to include it explicitely there. Is this
> >> redundant
> >> with the answer to the consultation? should there be some automatic
> >> update
> >> of the text of the rules to include implicit consequences of the
> >> existing
> >> rules once this consequence have been aknowledge by a consultation?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/26/07, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This brings up a point. I like the way Agora annotates the rule set
> >>> with judgment decisions. Any interest in starting that here?
> >>>
> >>> - Hose
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> spoon-discuss mailing list
> >>> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spoon-discuss mailing list
> >> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss