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

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You probably ought to add:
 * Taking a vacant Ministry.

--
0x44;



Roger Hicks wrote:
> The objective of this refresh proposal is to quickly remedy the
> problems with my previous RP. Honestly, a few minor tweaks is all that
> is required. This is not an official submission, merely a draft.
>
> Refresh Proposal (Draft)
> {
>
> [[Issue: panic buttons & emergency state unknown?
> Fix: allow synonyms for activation of panic buttons, validate past
> attempts to press/depress, and therefore validate the commonly assumed
> gamestate.]]
> Amend rule 0 by inserting after the fifth paragraph:
> {{
> Synonyms for the above actions have the same effect as taking those
> actions as long as the declared action is unambiguous in meaning
> }}
> The above amendment to rule 0 has a retroactive effect, causing all
> unambiguous declarations of a player's individual panic button state
> changes within the past month to be valid when in compliance with
> other aspects of rule 0.
>
> [[Issue: controlling the game through invalidating other player's actions.
> Solution: require 2 support for an invalidation. Protect all aspects
> of the Consultation system from spontaneous invalidation.]]
> Amend rule 1-10 by replacing the paragraph beginning with:
> {{
> Any player (as a Game Action) may declare any Game Action which has
> occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid
> }}
> with the following:
> {{
> As a Game Action with 2 Support, any Player may declare any Game
> Action which has occurred within the past NDay to be Invalid, unless
> that Game Action is one of the following:
> * Declaring another action invalid
> * Submitting a consultation
> * The Oracle assigning a Waiting Consultation to a Priest
> * A Priest answering a Waiting Consultation to which they have been
> assigned and not removed (and possibly submitting an Oracularity)
> * The Oracle Zotting a consultation
> * Any player making a claim of consistency or inconsistency on a
> consultation when permitted to do so by the rules.
>
> An action which has been declared invalid is treated as if it never
> occurred. An Outsider whose Game Action has been declared invalid may
> submit a consultation about the validity of that action. When that
> consultation becomes Pondered, if the priest determines that action is
> indeed valid, the Player who declared it invalid, and each Player who
> supported that declaration loses 10 points. However, if the priest
> finds that the action was indeed invalid, the actor loses 10 Points.
> }}
> [[Issue: Spamming consultations regarding clearly invalid actions
> Solution: point penalty (see above). Impose limits on consultation
> submission (outside the scope of this refresh proposal)]]
>
> [[Issue: Arbitrary zotting of consultations by the Oracle (judicial activism)
> Solution: 2 Support required for zotting (outside the scope of this
> refresh proposal)]]
> }
>
> Comments gladly accepted.
>
> BobTHJ
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>   
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss