Re: [s-d] [s-b] Out of bounds

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 7, 2008 5:37 AM, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [[ Oracularities are meant to provide answers and interpretations
> when there is a doubt, not to bend the rules until they fit. It seems
> to me that we are abusing the oracularity system (and yes, I admit I
> may have fallen there too) ]]
>
> {
> Create a new rule named "Overstepping on the legislative branch" that
> reads:
>
> If a Priest has submitted an oracularity as part of an answer that is
> overridden by claims of Inconsistency he gains the property "Has
> Overstepped" for that nweek.
>
> Gaining the "Has Overstepped" property is a Misdemeanor.
> Players that possess the "Has Overstepped" property may not be
> selected as Priests.
> }

This seems like it could be vulnerable to scams involving conspiracies
disqualifying priests who give perfectly good answers, but it may be
the case that such a conspiracy would need to be large enough to do
much worse things.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss