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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 26, 2007 6:12 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
>
Yes, I intended that. Somehow I missed it.
>
> > 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.
>
Thanks, I'll word that better.

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