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

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.


Agreed it should remain accessible to newbies. Reading ruleset + PD of
influential consultations (I plan to skim thru what we've got so far and
suggest some that should lose influence soon) should be enough + not too
onerous.

Also agree with later posts about oracularities being for clarification.

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