On 10/21/2011 02:16 PM, ais523 wrote: > This is going to be absolute chaos. Yes.
> Probably best to allow date-stamps > in the body of the message to take precedence, especially due to the > existence of "received:" headers, or it might be technically annoying to > use. I don't understand what you're saying here. The current draft lets in-body stamps take precedence if they meet the requirements, or else reverts to the usual system. > A bad idea? Probably, but I'm willing to try it and see what happens. > (I'm not sure you'll get the AI 3 you need, though.) Alternate version: only allow time-travelling within each day, but leave the rule in place for multiple days. This would make the gamestate-so-far resolve much more frequently, and in particular frequently enough to be non-annoying to recordkeepors.
