Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

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

A couple quick comments:

On 11/26/07, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and
> unregulated. However, for the purposes of this rule an action or object is
> regulated if described by a rule.


I actually quite like this way of phrasing it, as well as the single
continuous universe your consultation revision creates. And I'm not entirely
sure, as Will is saying (but it's possible), that these are redundant. There
are clear guidelines here, as to what is legal or not, which guide
consultations, which are still needed to resolve conflicts.

Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
> occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless that Game Action
> was to declare another Game Action invalid, or to submit a
> consultation. An invalid Game Action is treated as if it never
> occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
> submit a consultation whose text reads "XXX is valid", where XXX is
> the Game Action they attempted to perform. When that consultation
> becomes Pondered, the Player who declared that game action to be
> invalid loses 10 Points.


I perform the following Game Action ONE MILLION times: Win the game of B
Nomic.

What, you say that's an illegal action because winning is described in the
rules? Then declare it to be invalid, by all means! Oh... but it'll cost you
10 points. So you say all the other players combined do not have 10 MILLION
points? I WIN!

Of course, the other players could all start creating points out of thin
air, and I would not find a sympathetic priest for miles around who would
declare such point creation invalid, in this case. But you can see how
easily this situation could degenerate. Which leads to my point:

1) Make it so the declarer only loses 10 points if the Priest rules the
action was valid. And -perhaps- (NOT sure about this) add a penalty for
attempting to perform illegal actions, as Will said.


> When a Priest submits an answer to a consultation, within three ndays
> (or ndelays if the clock is off) since its submission, any player
> except the Unbeliever and the Supplicant may, as a Game Action, make a
> Claim as to the Answer's (and Ocularity's) Consistency with the
> current rules. Such Claims will ultimately state that the player
> believes the answer to be Consistent or Inconsistent. If a Player
> submits multiple Claims, only the last one submitted shall be counted.


Such Claims will ultimately state that the player believes the answer to be
Consistent or Inconsistent. I think that sentence doesn't quite match the
reality of the situation, as the phrasing should include mention of the fact
that the answer will likely be declared inconsistent if EITHER the answer is
truly inconsistent OR the oracularity is unreasonable. Someone could agree
with my answer but disagree with my plan to become dictator, as an extreme
example.

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