On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 01:57 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
I'd recommend reintroducing the old requirement that the CFJ must be on the subject of whether an action is possible or legal (or if you want to mix it up a bit while still achieving the same basic goal, require the CFJ to be about recordkeepor information). That way, the paradox has to "leak into" the gamestate to work. I'd also recommend adding a second requirement that the paradox not be about which judgements for a CFJ are appropriate (this shuts down most of the uninteresting paradox attempts I've seen). I'd also recommend, instead of banning paradoxes that "arise from the case itself" (which is far too prone to rules lawyering), require the paradox to occur /before/ the case is initiated (equivalently, the CFJ to talk about a past gamestate). Again, that's just for making something subjective more objective. -- ais523
