Re: [s-d] About panics

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

On 12/11/07, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> William Berard wrote:
> > On 12/11/07, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm panicking because anyone who feels like it can prevent anything
> >> from happening in the game just by announcing that all of the actions
> >> are Invalid.
> >>
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, you just have to log a consultation to make your
> > action valid again.
> >
> >
> It takes a minimum of 4ndays for a Consultation to become pondered. If
> your action is not validated until 4ndays after the fact, Consultations
> become meaningless. The rules as written allowed for the arbitrary, and
> effectively untouchable invalidations of otherwise valid actions. The
> Consultation system is too slow to handle that sort of thing, unless we
> put in an exception for invalidated actions removing the 4nday delay for
> comment, pithy insight, and other claims.
>

Well, really, the way you put it, it boils down to the time frame of
validation being incompatible with the current pace of the game.

And also probably the fact that the ruleset sort-of-assumed players
would not just spam with objections to the validity of actions.

Perhaps a simple tweak would be (aside from requiring support to claim
invality, and/or speeding up the ponderation process) to declare that
actions which are explicitely authorised by the ruleset cannot be
declared invalid? This would cover most of the problematic cases, such
as voting ,submitting/answering consultations, and whatnot...
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss