Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Point of Order!

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM,  <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> B seems to have a pathological aversion to anything along the lines of
>> "emergency actions can be performed via any message sent with the
>> good-faith expectation that all players will receive it".  Personally, I
>> blame a cabal of central-planning apparatchiks.
>
> Define good-faith in such a way that it can be independently observed.
> Hell, define it in such a way that it can be legislated unambiguously
> within the Rules.

Well, it's kind of a cheap way out.  In practice, it's (nearly) always
possible to ascertain good faith, since scams usually go out and call
themselves such-- but only because "act in good-faith or obviously bad
faith" is a metarule.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss