On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > 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.
Not exactly. Lindrum's proponents and opponents worked to ensure that the "restart" converged the states. But you do point to something that was a problem the whole time: the Wizards were also players, with a huge amount of disproportionate and unacknowledged by the rules power; for example, scams depended on creating secret rooms etc., and some judgement results were more dependent on which way the wizard coded the mechanism. -G.
