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

["William P. Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 29 nov. 07, à 17:51, Roger Hicks a écrit :

> 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.


Point 4 in Woobles minimalistic RP addresses that, although only for 
creation alteration and destruction of Game Objects, but this in itself 
cover quite a lot of cases, if not all of them, since more or less 
everything which is part of the game is a Game Object.

Furthermore, although I cannot be bothered to go and fish them out, 
some of the other RP try and adress this point.

>
> 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.
>

Both those argument are valid, but my point was rather that, unless you 
fear there is an immediate risk that Players might sumbit actions that 
would threatend the quantic stability of the game immediately once we 
get out of pause, I do not see why those issues (which are real) could 
not be addressed through regular proposals,, once we are out of the 
emergency.


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