RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy

[Dan Waldron <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> > > > 
> > > > This game is an agent.
> > > 
> > > That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do 
> > that then?
> > 
> > Because the rules say that an agent is an entity capable of 
> > action, and
> > that the status of agents may be modified only as specified 
> > in the rules.
> > I think it is better to do this than to have a fight about it later.
> > 
> > I have some other proposals coming up that might work better 
> > if there is
> > no argument that the game is an agent.
> 
> Are you interpreting Rule 105 as:
> If entity X is capable of action then entity X is an Agent.
> or:
> If entity X is an Agent then entity X is capable of action.
> ?
> 
> With the first interpetation I would say that the game is not capable of
> action and therefore is not an Agent. However if you are using the second
> interpretation and you want to introduce a rule that causes the game to
> perform actions and you first want to make it an Agent, then that sounds
> like fun...

I am worried that if we decide that the game is not an agent it will lose
the ability to order us around.  That wouldn't be any fun.

Poulenc.