Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

[Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23 Jan 2009, at 16:25, Jamie Dallaire wrote:

> I think oracularities might be nice too. But there are many ways of
> implementing changes that the priest can use (proposal, tweak,  
> approve). Of
> course, they are slower or more prone to objection that were  
> oracularities,
> so these might be useful to get back.
>
> But I think that those are separate questions. As is, a  
> consultation like
> 168 should be answered SOMETIMES rather than NO, technically. That  
> doesn't
> change the fact that the priest should submit an oracularity to fix  
> the
> problem (in the case of 168, of course, it's not really a  
> problem...). An
> oracularity is appropriate even if the answer isn't forcibly wrong.

Thing is, with "the judgment is true" we build up precedence and end up
like Agora/real world legal systems... which is no fun, as newbies  
should
be able to read the ruleset and PDs and know everything they need to.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss