2009/2/18 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>: > Standing precedent is that it split the game into two wholly internally > consistent interpretations, one that it worked, one that it didn't work. > Each state (internally) could declare itself valid. So, UNDECIDABLE, > which required a metagame reunification. > > Back when it was going on, both sides were arguing vociferously from > within their own interpretation (and the sides were really evenly split) > so it took time and hindsight and an outside system (i.e. Agora) as a > meta-judge to (sort-of) formalize it. > > It's also why I'm a little sensitive to judicial-system scams.
I have read the game 1 logs starting from Lindrum. I get the impression the Implementor just ignored everyone and restarted it after a while. A shame.
