Re: [s-d] About panics

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 11, 2007 6:49 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Ratification of public displays is certainly a good idea. However, I
think you are forgetting what got us into the mess of the first
emergency: The consultation system is too slow to determine if
questionable actions are valid or not, especially when consultations
are chained together and the validity of one hinges upon the other.
The purpose of the change was to unquestionably determine within one
day if an action was valid or not. Admittedly, there are some flaws
(it is too easy to declare an action that is in alignment with the
rules to be invalid) but the system itself is quite functional.

I honestly believe this would have gone over a lot better in a nomic
like Agora, where unwritten rules curtail a lot of sillyness, "try it
to see if it breaks" is typically done under controlled circumstances,
and overall there seems to be a higher level of maturity (although,
these same things tend to make Agora seemed stuffy and stiff-necked at
times). However, just because the first attempt at a significant
change didn't work right doesn't mean the system as a whole is flawed.
Our current state of emergency arose from abuse of the newly
implemented system. If the opportunities for abuse were closed or
limited, I think it will function fine.

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