On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> On 18 December 2013 06:36, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >
> >> If the Ant Farm Manifesto states that a player's (Agoran) score
> >> would change, the Ant Farmer SHALL announce that change as soon
> >> as possible, and that announcement, if true, changes the player's
> >> score as announced.
> >
> >
> > I get a bit nervous when the requirements for changing a part of the game
> > state (Score) contains non-obvious Platonic complements ("if true").
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
>
> I guess if that part's dropped, we're covered by the fact that
> officers CAN do stuff that they SHALL – so that if it is later found
> out that the Manifesto actually didn't say it should change (by
> inquiry case for example) then in fact there was no SHALL and thus the
> annoncement was ineffective. Provided the change hasn't ratified, of
> course.
I think for score, the safest thing to do is self-ratify, and if no-one
brings up the falsehood in a week, well, someone got away with something
and that's that.
The alternative is having the announcement change the score regardless,
and then have some kind of chargeback if it's wrong, with increasing
complication. The platonic version's generally worked fine for other
scoring we've used.
-G.
