Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Consultation Answer Effects?

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I see your point. If the game were to end that would break a years-long
tradition of continuous play. There is no simple fix for the game ending.

Now I'd like to put forth my reasoning to support my main idea. The way I
see this conversation going, I am meeting more and more complicated
resistance to the idea. Thus I will have to give some complicated reasoning
to back it up. The idea is that there is always the theoretical, if not
actual, possibility of a legally reasonable dispute arising that cannot be
resolved by in-game mechanics alone.

The following are two attempts I made at backing up this idea. The first one
simply serves to show how I was enlightened as to the robustness of the
Emergency procedure. Attempt 2 is where I stretch the imagination to show
that it is theoretically possible to break even the Emergency procedure. You
will probably find it unsatisfactory. Even I do in a practical sense, but in
that it respresents a theory I think it does the job. I find myself
believing now that it is indeed practically impossible to break B Nomic
through unresolvable dispute. But the theory remains, for what it's worth.

Attempt 1 (skip if you like): For example: Wooble is the MoM (rules in cases
of Emergency) and MoQ (Oracle, assigns Consultations). He resigns in a way
that people disagree on whether he actually resigned. I take the MoM and
MoQ. He submits a Consultation to decide if he is a player still. He assigns
it to one Priest, I to another. The Priests each claim that they are
properly assigned and that Wooble is a player or not a player, respectively.
At this point, I would argue,People panic and four people become paranoid.
(Say none of them are Wooble.) A state of Emergency begins, and Wooble and I
each become the Emergency Coordinator. Wooble submits a refresh proposal ...
Oh, Wooble doesn't become the EC because of the definition of PEP.
Attempt 2: Say we are in a State of Emergency. Say Wooble had somehow
resigned, before the Emergency, but some people don't think he did. Now say
he submits a Refresh Proposal, and it gets the most votes. Some people will
claim that the runner-up refresh proposal has won, because Wooble was not a
Player and so was not a PEP. But other people will claim that he was a
Player, or that it is uncertain whether he was or wasn't a Player, so he was
a PEP, and his Refresh Proposal was a valid and winning one. But
the pro-Woobles will respond that it was not uncertain to them, in fact, it
was quite clear that Wooble had resigned. If the difference in Refresh
Proposals is enough to make people unwilling to come to agreement or
compromise, then the game will have split, due to an unresolvable dispute.

Now give me your response, but remember that I don't believe this is cause
for actual legislation. I only argue a theory that I believe applies to all
games of every kind.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:12 AM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > And if this happens, someone can fix it, with common consent, by starting
> up
> > the game again without the action that ruined it. But the game itself
> can't
> > start itself again. It's outside of the game's scope. Even the Rule that
> > says who is responsible cannot really do anything itself, but relies on
> > people agreeing to something that the rules don't cover.
>
> Nope.
>
> If you just start the game up again, then you've ended the game.
> Which, given the long history of both B and Agora in terms of time
> spent constantly running, would be disastrous.  Even this Era of B was
> started by a legal game move from the last era.
>
> Instead, if the game is truly broken and the justice system is
> incapable of resolving it, you start a State of Emergency or submit a
> proposal to get the game back into a known state.
>
> Not that it was in this situation.  It would have been best if the
> Oracles had agreed to assign the case to the same person (for example,
> recently in Agora, ais523 tried to assign a CFJ to me via a scam; the
> Clerk of the Courts [=Oracle] then also assigned the same CFJ to me,
> to prevent ambiguity if the scam didn't work-- for a more dramatic
> situation, see Human Point Two) but being judged only in one
> "universe" would (IMO) count as precedent, if the case was zotted in
> the other state.  If it really was judged two different ways, then,
> yeah, I'd submit a proposal...
>  _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



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