Re: [s-d] Grand Chancellor?

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

On 12/12/07, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2007 8:37 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Mike McGann wrote:
> > > On Dec 11, 2007 10:04 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > How could you possibly interpret 1-10 otherwise?
> > >
> > > I read it as:
> > >
> > > You have 1 nday to declare an action to be invalid.
> > > After 1 nday, the action is valid no matter what.
> >
> > I interpret it as I'm pretty sure it was meant to be interpreted: before
> > the nday, the action would be valid if and only if the Rules actually
> > allow it.
> >
> > Although maybe that interpretation would violate the Temporal Prime
> > Directive?
> >
> Just to clarify once more, this is what I intended:
>
> Whenever any action occurs the gamestate splits into two quantum
> states, one where the action is valid, and one where it is not.
>
> If the action is declared invalid then the gamestate where it is valid
> is collapsed.
>
> If the action goes for an nday unchallenged then the gamestate where
> it is invalid is collapsed.
>
> BobTHJ
>


Yeah, but in which gamestate does the fact of declaring the action
invalid takes place? common sense might say that well,
retro-validating one's action by altering the rule itself like the
Chancellor did shoudl not be allowed, so that, so to speak, claiming
invalidity of an action is outside the realm of either gamestate, as
it should always be possible.

But on the other hand, one oculd argue that the claim of invalidity is
only possible in the gamestate where the rule is valid, end then... we
have a chancellor.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss