Kerim Aydin on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:37:01 +0100 (CET)

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

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

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I really suggest you bring up this topic on the Agoran forums, as the
> legalists over there should be able to make quite the case for
> "permissible unless regulated" (they seem to really enjoy debating
> these horrendously abstract concepts on a regular basis). I'm sure
> there has been a plethora of Agoran CFJs on the issue. I'm fairly
> certain every Agoran player (with the exception of myself) has a PhD
> in Logic, Computer Science, Mathematics, Law, and just about any other
> topic you could think of.

Ok, I'll bite and make it easy:  Agora says "everything is permissible
unless doing it would change something regulated" and then defines something 
as "regulated" if is explicitly tracked as part of the game (mackerels, 
devices, etc.).  I can post the actual rule if you want.  There, no PhD 
needed, but I'll take one if it will stop my brain hurting from the last 
100 Bnomic messages.

> 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.

Actually, no one likes these solutions.  The couple of cases of "tracking
states" was where someone specifically set up a paradox that made two
states... no one's ever tracked more than two that I know of... or is 
there something else you have in mind?  There was one "general consensus"
once that still annoys Agorans if you bring it up.


spoon-discuss mailing list