Re: [s-d] [s-b] Gamestate collapse.

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Alexander Smith <AIS523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> THANKS FOR DROPPING THE ATOMIC PARADOX BOMB RIGHT WHEN I JOIN PEOPLE!
> It's not as bad as it looks. There is a correct gamestate, we just have to
> identify what it is (using any process we like).

As I said on IRC, this headfake-- for that's what it is, like
annulment over divorce-- has worked well in Agora and B, but in this
case it starts to reveal itself as such.  I believe (correct me if I'm
wrong) that the two bugs found in the initial ruleset, comment text
and majority-of-affirmative-votes, would not have been considered bugs
if pointed out at the time B was started, because the game custom then
was not to interpret everything hyper-literally.  ("It receives a
majority of affirmative votes", for its part, can be reasonably
interpreted in context as "it receives, in majority, affirmative
votes".)  Unlike, say, science, where only one theory can actually be
correct, when playing a game there is no fundamental rule as to the
proper interpretation of the rules.  Certainly it's /possible/ to play
a game with a loose interpretation of the rules; the players
interpreted it loosely; the rules were correct based on such an
interpretation; how can we conclude that they were wrong all along
based on a changed custom?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss