Geoffrey Spear on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:41:01 -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 8:29 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't think the current Justice system is working and needs more changes
> than this. I actually prefer the old way. Now, Answers are irrelevant and it
> has simply become a different mechanic to enact rule changes and it isn't
> even effective at doing that.

I agree to some extent, but I feel that Answers should be limited to
clarifying the immediate gamestate and we should avoid a system where
they set precedent for how the rules will be applied in the future;
that requires new players to understand the entire history of
oracularities and which ones still apply (since later rule changes can
clarify the rules such that the ambiguities resolved by an Answer no
longer exist).  This is one issue where I feel the current system in B
is better designed than Agora's system.  On the other hand, their
system isn't nearly as messy as ours.

I actually think the old system was written correctly, but that
Oracularities were woefully underused. The Answer should guide future
play in that it sets the gamestate to be what it would be if the
Answer were correct, but any underlying ambiguity in the rules that
led to the Question should be repaired by an Oracularity that is
separate from the Answer and voted on as an ordinary proposal is.
spoon-discuss mailing list