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

["Geoffrey Spear" <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would say that it is too difficult to determine what game state the answer
> should create. It is retroactive simulation that depends not only on the
> Answer, but also on the Reasoning, because of Wooble's wording.

If the Answer would actually need to change the gamestate, or if the
Priest's reasoning doesn't consist of a summary of the facts about
what actually happened in the game, it should be declared
Inconsistent.  I believe as it's written the Oracularity should lead
to consultations on matters of fact that might be unclear being easy
to resolve, and consultations on matters of law having no effect
outside of their own oracularities since all the answer can do is give
an instantaneous picture of the truth of the question.

Of course, I'd also be more than happy to legislatively redo
consultation reform; I'm not convinced we got it perfectly right the
last time or that this oracularity would fix the current problems.
-- 
Wooble
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss