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

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

I totally agree with what Wooble said.

BobTHJ wrote:
"Answers shouldn't guide future play (in that they resolve ambiguities of
the rules in
the future), but they should correct gamestate"

I don't totally agree with this. Answers need to be stop-gap measures until
something can fix whatever is wrong with the Rules. Not to create a
precedent but to establish an assertion about the game at that point in
time.

BobTHJ wrote:
"Oracularities provide a simple and clean means of fixing ambiguities
without having to rely upon past records. The only breakdown with our
current system has been when priests fail to submit oracularities with their
answers."

I don't agree with this either. Answering a Consultation to the satisfaction
of the Players can be much easier than actually implementing the changes. In
the old system, once the Priest answers, you have a final answer in 4 rdays.
Now, you have no clue when a Consultation will be finished. The answer might
be correct, but claims of inconsistency can keep it festering in a
reassignment loop until everyone finds the oracularity acceptable (or
absent). I'd rather have this been done through normal proposal processes.

- Hose
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss