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

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM, David E. Smith <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I am also inclined to do it that way.

> 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.

Yes, I believe that's been the case recently. Particularly egregious
was the Eternal Nday at the end of Era 4.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss