Re: [s-d] [s-b] Murphy's refresh proto v2.0

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm unsure about repealing the changes to rule 1-10. We obviously need a 
way of adjudicating invalid actions, and the Consultation system as 
defined is too slow.

Repealing the rule 1-10 amendment opens a huge loophole within rule 
1-18. If we repeal both the amendment AND rule 1-18, we're sort of back 
where we started at the beginning of /last/ emergency.

--
0x44;



Mike McGann wrote:
> I'm in the minimalist camp, so I like the gist of this. For ratification of
> the gamestate, how about posting "a" gamestate somewhere and have "that"
> ratified. It should be the gamestate generally believed, but it prevents
> anyone from contesting it later on. Does it need some clause saying that it
> is officially valid and any previous actions of invalidity or validity
> cannot be contested? If someone says, "The clock wasn't turned on in nweek
> 126" will it be safe?
>
> I think that should be enough, but people can be quite crafty.
>
> - Hose
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>   
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss