Roger Hicks on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:40:08 -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 6:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. Answers shouldn't
guide future play (in that they resolve ambiguities of the rules in
the future), but they should correct gamestate. For example, if I
submit a consultation "Does Game Object X exist?" and you answer it
NO, then when your answer becomes pondered the gamestate should be set
so that object X does not exist. However, if Object X's existance was
questionable because the rule that defined objects of that type was
ambiguous, then your answer should not have an effect upon how that
rule is interpreted in the future. Instead an Oracularity should be
submitted which clarifies that ambiguity in the rules.

I believe this is what occurs under our present system, but I am all
for changing the wording to make it more clear as to the effect
answers have on the gamestate.

spoon-discuss mailing list