| Jamie Dallaire on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:57:38 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: The Oracle is Wise |
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Elliott Hird < penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If an ally to a scam gets assigned, then it'll be INCONSISTENT, almost > certainly. Note that this argument applies with equal force whether or not the Oracle is allowed to designate a Priest of eir choosing. However, I would argue that: a) multiple declarations of inconsistency take a long time, and delay progress especially when the question at hand is crucial to the game. b) we are a lazy B, and declare answers to be inconsistent more infrequently than we should. Given a, it would be advantageous to rely on an Oracle who can distribute Consultations in a manner that avoids obvious conflicts of interest (not to mention obstructionists and players who are active/ordained in name only), rather than rely on an unintelligent random assignment mechanism. Given b, it would be a bad idea to pass my proposal if we are to allow corrupt schemesters to hold the MoQ. It would be a good idea to pass my proposal if we are to entrust control of the MoQ to Players who can be expected to remain impartial. This may have been a bad idea when anyone with a little mack could dethrone any other minister in an instant. This is no longer the case. A Minister can presently only be removed from eir post if e fails to fulfill eir duties or loses an election. As long as B avoids electing careless/incompetent/corrupt ministers (I know, that's difficult!), there shouldn't be a problem here. But there should be advantages. Billy Pilgrim _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss