Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: declarations of invalidity

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

On 12/7/07, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 10:00 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I propose the following oracularity, (although I am open to any
> > alternative proposal on how to solve this particular blurryness of the
> > rules) :
> > {
> > At the end of rule 1-10, add a paragraph, reading :
> > {{
> > The gamestate is not considered to be changed until an action has been
> > confirmed valid, that is by not being contested within the allowed
> > timespan. As such, should subsequent actions based on a potential
> > gamestate change be submitted during that timeframe, their own
> > validity would be questioned as well if the validity of the original
> > action was.
> > }}
> > }
> >
> > It seems I got tangled up in syntax there. If anyone has a better idea
> > or a better wording for this, feel free to let me know, I will revise
> > the oracularity. If I can.
> >
> I don't know that you can revise it. However, personally I don't think
> that this is the solution either. What happens to votes cast on the
> last day of the voting period? What about objecting to an action? In
> my estimation, every action needs to be valid until it is declared
> invalid, at which point the gamestate is retroactively changed to
> reflect that invalidity.

I'm all for this, but then your RP did not revoke, nor alter rule 3-1.

Although now that I read it carefully, 3-10 allows to "perform
otherwise-legal game actions that simulate retroactive changes to the
game state".

I think that my answer still stands, as an invalidation of an action
can be ssen as one of such action. I agree that my reasoning does not
highlight this enough, and that my oracularity does not use this, but
I was effectively trying to go your way without having to admit a
onpen conflict between 1-10 and 3-10

What I mean by "As such, should subsequent actions based on a potential
gamestate change be submitted during that timeframe, their own
validity would be questioned as well if the validity of the original
action was."

was actually meant to go the way you indicate : until confirmation of
the validiy of the action A , the current gamestate is a potential
gamestate, and if subsequent action occur based on properties that
only exist in that potential gamestate, if the original action A is
deemed invalid, without contestation, then all the subsequent actions
using consequences of A are deemed invalid, effectively retroactively
cancelling them.




>Note that this is the way we have handled
> things all along. My refresh proposal was designed to limit this
> retroactive calculation to a maximum of one day. In retrospect, there
> are a few flaws with my design, but I don't think this is the way to
> solve them.
>
> Due to my above arguments, I am forced to declare this INCONSISTENT.
>

I am willing to retract/resubmit my answer and oracularity, or if I
cannot, to delare those inconsistent myself, itf you have a working
framework to implement what you describe.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss