Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fire sale!

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 10, 2008 5:25 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 3:20 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Let's also be clear: A consultation established that there existed at the
> > time (and I think that still applies) 5 rapiers within the game. It is now
> > pondered. In other words, the rapier that used to be owned by pikhq still
> > exists somewhere in the ether. That said, the consultation did not in any
> > way make the owner of that rapier "nobody" or even confirm that "nobody" was
> > the owner. The owner of the rapier might just as well be "everybody" or
> > "anybody" or "the first player who yells CREAMPUFF".
> >
>
> This consultation, while having a direct effect upon its question,
> does not guide future play, and therefore has no effect on the current
> existence of this unowned rapier. For all we know the unowned rapier
> ceased to exist one second after the consultation became pondered.

I believe the Consultation system should probably be fixed so that an
Answer to a question about an actual ambiguity in the gamestate
implicitly creates an Oracularity setting the gamestate to what it
would be if the Answer were true.  The oracularity tweaks work great
for when the Rules are ambiguous and need to be changed to become
unambiguous, but for assertions about the current state of the game
they shouldn't be necessary.


-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss