Re: [s-d] [s-b] Fix proposals

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Game Actions which involve calculating things that are unreasonable,
> impossible or ambiguous fail and have no effect.  Determining what
> meets that criteria is up to Ministries and the Consultation system.
>
> No rule, game document, or game action may require or force any
> retroactive changes to the game state.


The following isn't a problem with this Proposal per se, but rather just one
that already exists and persists through this proposal...

I've just realized that those two paragraphs might interact in a strange
way.

The first might be the only part of the Rules that actually grants the
Justice system the power to affect gamestate outside of the justice system.

Judicial decisions concerning a purported game action involving a possibly
unreasonable calculation are by their very nature taken AFTER the game
action is attempted.

The second paragraph prohibits retroactive changes, e.g. a pondered answer
affecting whether or not a past action succeeded.

Of course, the alternative view which might be quite valid is the same one
that applies to the justice system in general. Answers don't -decide- what
happened or didn't, they only reflect the players' general opinion on what
did or did not happen.

I'm just not sure whether that alternative view might not be a wee bit less
tenable with respect to the unreasonable calculations, given the explicit
invoking of the consultation system for resolving these issues.

Thoughts?

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