| Geoffrey Spear on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:49:18 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] About panics |
On Dec 11, 2007 8:36 AM, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... Why have the declarations of invalidity at all, then? Actions that are illegal shouldn't take place, regardless of who claims they do. Actions that are unquestionably legal should take place, regardless of any claims to the contrary. For actions the legality of which is ambiguous, we have Consultations to determine whether they took place. To avoid ambiguities in what too place making the gamestate ambiguous, we just need a formal ratification process for the Public Displays. In my opinion, each Minister should be responsible for interpreting the Rules as they relate the portions of the game state that he must track, and those interpretations should guide what goes into each Ministry's Public Display. If a Minister's interpretation is obviously incorrect, this can be informally pointed out so he can correct the Public Display. If there's a question as to correctness, a Consultation can clear up any doubt, and the Priest can instruct the Minister on how to correct the public display to match the actual gamestate. Perhaps there can be a criminal penalty for Ministers who are found by the justice system to have deliberately falsified their Public Displays, and maybe as a lesser offense a penalty for negligently doing so. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/ _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss