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

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:39:49 +0000
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
> 
> 
> 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.
 
I agree.
 
Bringing Ocularities back would be a good idea and people can declare them consistent/inconsistent so it is democratic. The result would be a more secure ruleset where all the fiddly rules questions that have come up are patched with an explicit explanation that new Players can easily read along with the other rules.
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Love Hotmail?  Check out the new services from Windows Live! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/132630768/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss