Roger Hicks on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:51:30 +0100 (CET)

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

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

On Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Just for the sake of argument, although I previously described myself as a
> supporter of your RP, what exactly is the advantage of choosing your RP over
> wooble's, bearing in mind the oracularity system (which I incidentaly
> support) you propose could be submitted as a proper proposal, and voted for
> independantly? (to your benefit since you'd get some points for it)
The problem is two-fold:

1. Not having clearly defined rules on the permissibility of actions
is what led to this emergency. As the conversations of the past few
days (I hope) have proven, what is permissible and what is not needs
to be clearly indicated in the ruleset.

2. Quantum states that are not rapidly resolved quickly crash the
game. If no one knows what the correct gamestate is, then no one knows
if a particular action is valid. What is to prevent another quantum
state from crashing the game again before a standard proposal passes?
It is necessary to address this now, before we are forced into another
state of emergency for the same reason. My proposal is the only one
put forward so far that would limit the duration of a quantum state to
a manageable timeframe (1 nday). All other refresh proposals require
an answered consultation which takes a minimum of 4 ndays, and which
in turn can cause chained quantum states of limitless duration when
the judicial process itself is in quantum flux.

Many thanks to Geordi La Forge for assistance in writing that last paragraph :)


spoon-discuss mailing list