Re: [s-d] [s-b] As per Wooble's Refresh update

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What do you think said combined gamestate will be?
>
> It can't be the union of all rulesets from passed Points of Order,
> because several of them require that the whole ruleset be replaced
> with their contents (rather than having their contents added to the
> ruleset) and thus don't get to coexist. So whichever one resolves last
> wins - except that they resolve simultaneously.
>

In my day (when we had to walk uphill both ways barefoot in the snow), it
was customary that events which otherwise would resolve "simultaneously,"
would be handled in chronological order by the date of the initial proposal.
I'd suggest things be resolved that way - even if it turns out to be the
"wrong" way to do it, it will leave one set of rules intact, which can then
be used either to determine their own legitimacy through whatever
justice/dispute system exists in that ruleset, or to provide a whole new set
of replacement rules (again, via that system, which can be used to decide
which PoO should have been the "last" one to take effect), or to provide an
emergency framework for starting over.

Anyone have records of emergency periods in B in the last couple years,
relative to real-time? It seems like you folks have spent more time in
states of emergency/unrest than in active playing time.

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