|comex on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:42:58 +0100 (CET)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [s-d] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal|
On Monday 26 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote: > Now, your second point (that every disputed action creates two > possible quantum gamestates) is a very valid one, and one that must be > addressed to avoid future issues. Agora's solution (which I hate) is > to track every possible gamestate that could exist, and seems to lead > to massive revisions to the gamestate, or else a general consensus to > ignore the past. I have an idea of how to address this issue, and I > will add it to the revised version of my refresh proposal. I for one would welcome Limited Stare Decisis in this nomic. Nevertheless, I see nothing wrong with waiting until a consultation is pondered to determine the legality of actions. The gamestate (at the time the action was performed) either changed, or did not changed, depending on its legality. It is the job of consultations to decide whether or not it actually changed. The problem happens in Agora when it turns out that the AFO didn't *really* win, but everyone had been playing as if it had although it was too controversial to be ratified. Ratification being like http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Proposals/0135. Am I the only person who finds the occasional quantum gamestate fun?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss