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

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 7, 2007 11:26 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In either case, your one-day challenge can be interpreted in a few
> different ways:
>
>    1) After the challenge time limit expires, the action retroactively
>       becomes valid.
>
>    2) After the challenge time limit expires, the gamestate becomes what
>       it would have been if the action had been valid.
>
>    3) Upon a challenge, the action retroactively becomes invalid.  If
>       overturned on consultation, it retroactively becomes valid.
>
>    4) Upon a challenge, the gamestate becomes what it would have been if
>       the action had been invalid.  If overturned on consultation, the
>       gamestate becomes what it would have been if the action had been
>       valid.
>
> 1 and 3 are retroactive, hence explicitly prohibited.  2 and 4 simulate
> retroactivity, hence explicitly allowed.  I favor 2 over 4, both because
> I think it makes more sense, and because it seems to avoid crises.

My intention was:

5. When an action occurs, the gamestate is split into two separate
quantum states, one where it is valid, and the other where it is
invalid. If the action is challenged, then the quantum state where the
action is valid is discarded. If the challenge period expires, the
quantum state where the action is invalid is discarded. If challenged
and then consulted to be valid, the priest (through oracularity)
causes the gamestate to become what it would have been if the action
had been valid (or as close too it as possible) = equity.

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