Re: [spoon-discuss] a different society fix

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/16/02 at 9:36 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>> > Change the sentence "A Society is a group of one or
>> > more entities who are
>> > Members of the Society."
>> > to
>> > "A Society is a group of zero or more entities.
>> > These entities are the
>> > Members of the Society."
>> > [[This allows for 0-member societies, as specified
>> > by the rules]]
>>
>>No.  Societies are collections of members.  Memberless
>>societies are pointless.
>
>If a rule specifies that a memberless society exists, this makes sure that
>a
>paradox isn't created.

A paradox wouldn't be created.  Depending on the rule-numbering method in use, either the society-specifying rule would take precedence, or the society one would.

>> > Change the sentence "Actions in this rule are not
>> > the only actions that
>> > societies may take."
>> > to
>> > "Societies may only take actions explictly permitted
>> > em in the rules."
>>
>>This borders on not allowing charters any variance in
>>a society's actions.  This, under my version of the
>>society rule, would be equivalent to only permitting
>>standard methods to be used.
>
>Standard Methods are a bit, um, stodgy.  No offence.  Plus, I hope to make
>lots of actions be permitted by societies (and other entities) in the
>rules
>later, and expect others may too.  Defining an action and defining a very
>similar Standard Method would be very inefficient.

Not what I meant.  I myself wouldn't want to be confined to standard methods.  Nor would I want to be confined to "actions explicitly permitted em in the rules", because that could be interpreted to mean a charter couldn't specify the circumstances under which the action could be performed.

>> > Change the sentence "In this rule, all Dimensions
>> > are Properties, and Points
>> > and Entropy, if they are not Dimensions, are
>> > Properties too."
>> > to
>> > "In this rule, all Dimensions are Properties, and
>> > Points, BNS and Entropy,
>> > if they are not Dimensions, are Properties too."
>>
>>I still don't see why properties are necessary.  Just
>>give societies dimensions, alrady.  Hell, even let
>>them score wins.
>
>BNS is not a dimension.  Score is not a dimension.  I wanted brevity.
>That
>is why I use 'property'.  As for actually giving them the dimensions, they
>did not have them before; also, I feel that the 'charm' etc of a society
>is
>the charm of its members; if it's members are respeceted, so is the
>society;
>if the society acts mischieviously, its members appear mischievious.

In that case, why not say societies have dimensions that are the averages of its members' dimensions?  That way, if all of a society's members are drunk as skunks, the society is skunked too.

>> > Change the senctence "Once per nweek, a Player may
>> > create a Society, giving
>> > it a uniquely identifying name."
>> > to
>> > "Each Player may, once per nweek, create a Society,
>> > at which time e must
>> > give it a uniquely identifying name.  The given name
>> > must not misrepresent
>> > the gamestate or attempt to do so; if it does, the
>> > Administrator may Rectify
>> > it and all references to it."
>>
>>If I can't create a society with a particular name, I
>>would rather fail to create it than have someone else
>>change it without my consent.
>
>However, if someone creates a society and does other things based on the
>society's creation, they may be quite unhappy if it ends up not being
>created, especially if the actions they take give away eir plans (like the
>Bomb Gnome Speeder Throw I orchestrated earlier, or any of the attempts at
>game breaking some members take regularly).

I'm not sure I feel sympathetic to someone who attempts to orchestrate a massive scam using an insta-society and fails due to a typo.  I think I would instead consider that entertainment.

>> > Change the sentence "Unless e specifies otherwise,
>> > the creator of a society
>> > becomes a member of that Society upon its creation."
>> > to
>> > "If e chooses, the creator of a Society may declare
>> > emself to be a member
>> > upon creation, in which case is is the only member
>> > upon creation; otherwise,
>> > the society has no members upon creation."
>>
>>Does this mean the society exists immediately upon
>>creation?
>
>I think that's implicit in the word 'create'.

Well, that wasn't the case before, and it allows insta-societies.  Is this a good thing?

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix1.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss