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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 26, 2007 10:59 PM, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Subclaim 2: Actions outside the game are permitted.
> This is trivially true: If an action is outside the game, then the
> game has no control over it. Someone mentioned earlier that the game
> never permits us to use email clients, or to get up in the morning,
> and so on. But we don't need the game's permission to do these things,
> because they're part of the real world and as such are beyond the
> game's ability to control.

This is why I said that in the absence of either a "permissible unless
regulated" or "monopoly mode" rule, "permissible unless regulated" was
implied. Yet everyone else disagreed with me.

>
> These two together amount to the following claim, that is true in any
> game by definition:
>
> Claim: An action that changes the state of the game can only be taken
> when the rules of the game explicitly allow it, and an action that
> does not change the state of the game can be taken regardless of
> whether the rules permit it.
>
> This renders Permissibility of the Unprohibited completely unnecessary.

Actually, I agree, using the same logic as your own. Yet several
others disagreed, hence the reason why I thought it best to formalize
it into the rules.
>
> One thing I'd like to see is a "Reparation" option for CFIs (or RFJs,
> or whatever they're called right now) to allow these situations to be
> avoided. The Reparations would be simple changes to the gamestate to
> try and roughly approximate what would have happened if we'd been
> playing the correct way. For example, image this scenario:
>   * A Device is created that costs mackerel and allows the holder to
> automatically fail a single Open proposal.
>   * Several players buy such Devices, and zap out various proposals.
>   * Voting ends, and the few remaining proposals take effect. Some
> proposals only pass because their Conflicts got zapped.
>   * Suddenly, somebody realizes that an odd wording in some random
> rule actually prohibited anyone from buying the Devices.
>   * Rather than rolling back to pre-voting and redoing all the votes,
> the [CR](F[JI]|onsultation) can provide a reparation: "Destroy the
> Devices and refund those who bought them, but retain the canceling of
> proposals, and give each author who lost a proposal because of the bug
> one free proposal in the next nweek".
>
> This is not at all in keeping with the rules, but is much simpler and
> easier on the admins. It's also closer to what you'd do in a real game
> like Monopoly - when you realize you've been doing something wrong,
> rather than restarting the game, you just make a few small gamestate
> tweaks to account for your mistakes and keep going.
>
This is (more or less) what I am proposing.

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