Re: [s-d] [s-b] Prop: Conflict Resolution

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey, it’s a justice system! Yay! Some thoughts interspersed within:

On May 11, 2015, at 9:09 PM, Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Proposal {{
>  Create a rule section with the following rules within it:
> 
>  Rule(__Requesting Resolution__) {{
>    As a Game Action any Player may submit a request for resolution (an
>    RR) consisting of a single statement and optionally a title.
> 
>    [[
>      "I am a fish" is a well-formed request.
>      "Is the gamestate a fish" is a badly-formed request.
>    ]]
> 
>    [[
>      It is recommended that the Administrator number RRs.
>    ]]
>  }}

Is there a particular reason you don’t want RRs to just be Game Documents, with the Number, Title, and Comment Text rules already established (such as they are)?

> 
>  Rule(__Eligible Resolvers__) {{
>    The set of ineligible resolvers consists of the Administrator, the
>    Player who proposed the RR, any Player named within the RR, and any
>    Player who has previously declined to rule 

Is this “previously declined the role of Resolver on this RR”, “previously declined the role of Resolver on any RR”, “became Irresolute on this RR”, or “became Irresolute on any RR”?

> 
>    The set of eligible resolvers is the relative complement of the set
>    of ineligible resolvers in the set of Players.
>  }}
> 
>  Rule(__Selecting a Resolver__) {{
>    The Administrator shall select a Resolver for the RR from the set of
>    eligible resolvers.
> 
>    The selected Player may do exactly one of the following as a 
>    Game Action:
> 
>    {{
>      Accept the role of Resolver.
>      Decline the role of Resolver.
>    }}
> 
>    In the event that they have done none of these things by the end of
>    the second complete nday after their selection then they are deemed
>    to have Declined.

It might be good to have a process for if the Clock is Off. (As might be the case if we want the game stopped while we’re figuring out what’s going on.)

> 
>    If the set of eligible resolvers is empty then the Administrator
>    shall decide the RR by any means they see fit.

I don’t know if one might want to phrase this as “The Administrator becomes the Resolver”, or if you’re intending for this to be a different procedure than that used by Resolvers.

> 
>    If the Player Declines then the Administrator shall return to the
>    beginning of this procedure.
> 
>    If the Player Accepts then they become the Resolver for that RR.
> 
>    If the Player becomes Irresolute then the Administrator shall return
>    to the beginning of this procedure.

I might add that the Player stops being the Resolver for that RR, just to make it clear. Unless you want either the original or the new resolver to be able to Resolve it. (Hopefully not both?)

>  }}
> 
>  Rule(__Resolution__) {{
>    The Resolver may post a Decision as a Game Action provided it is a
>    Valid Decision.
>  }}

Not sure if it’s really needed, but you may want to clarify that this should only happen once per RR, as the Resolver of the RR stays so indefinitely as far as I can tell.

> 
>  Rule(__Irresolute Resolvers__) {{
>    If the Player does not post a Decision within one nweek then they
>    become Irresolute.
>  }}

Again we may want to deal with the Clock being off. I can easily imagine situations where we don’t want to go a whole nweek without knowing the answer to an important question about the game, and an nweek may be too long even in a “normal” case.

> 
>  Rule(__Valid Decisions__) {{
>    The set of Valid Decisions is:
> 
>    {{
>      True,           [[ The statement is correct ]]
>      False,          [[ The statement is incorrect ]]
>      Indeterminate,  [[ Indications point both ways ]]
>      Mu              [[ The statement makes no sense in context ]]
>    }}
>  }}
> 
>  Rule(__Effect of Decisions__) {{
>    The statement specified in the RR has the truth value specified in
>    the Decision.
> 
>    [[ 
>      This may mean that the previously understood state of the game
>      may turn out to be incorrect.
>    ]]
>  }}

I’m not sure what the procedure is if this conflicts with the Administrator’s authority from Rule 2-3. I was expecting that Rule to get edited or removed with the addition of a justice system; I’m not sure we want both that rule and another set of rules deciding how the game works unless one clearly defers to the other.


> }}

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