On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 11:33 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > What is the ambiguousness and current mess, ais? Maybe this > > non-Player can help. > > Basically, the proposal that enacted the Province had multiple bugs, to > the extent of multiple attempted dictatorship scams. One bug, that's > irrelevant to the dictatorship scams but rather relevant to the attempts > to use the Province for its intended purpose, is that half the proposal > wasn't enacted due to ambiguity, so that all attempts to do anything in > the Province by anyone other than the DM fail. You could preserve the > spirit of the Province via using DM fiat to substitute for everyone > else's attempted actions; however, DM fiat is very much relevant to the > dictatorship scams, and in particular, both of them attempted to repeal > the DM fiat rule to close the loophole behind them. > > Thus, there were two intended ways to change the Province. Actions by > players are (uncontroversially?) broken. Actions by the DM, which could > substitute, are controversially broken, in that at least two scam > attempts claim to have repealed the rule in question, but there is at > least a reasonable viewpoint (e.g. Eritivus') that they both failed. If > both scam attempts did fail, there is still a nonzero chance that the > rule exists and is exploitable, in which case I want to hold onto the > office to prevent anyone else exploiting it (and to exploit the > remaining loopholes myself). > Is the current breakage due to competing candidate gamestates for R2437? If so, would unambiguously changing that Rule resolve the situation enough? -- OscarMeyr
