Geoffrey Spear on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:25:54 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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