Glotmorf on 4 Oct 2003 06:01:14 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Redefinition

Okay...I'm gonna have to take this in pieces.  It's too damn 
big to sit and comment on in one sitting.

Such comments as I've entered so far are below.


On 4 Oct 2003 at 0:52, Daniel Lepage wrote:

> A more finalized form of a proposal to overhaul many of the basics of
> the game. I believe it is compatible with everything it doesn't change
> (please let me know if I missed something). I also added the keywords
> OnNweek and OnCheckpoint, with OnCheckpoint have three subwords,
> :First, :Second, and :Third. I think it would make things much easier
> if every rule that defined something that happened at the beginning of
> an nweek had the keyword OnNweek, so simply be filtering by that kw we
> could get the list of nweekly events.
> Anyway, I've tried to be thorough, and to keep most of the definitions
> in the same numerical location in the ruleset as their current
> counterparts are. If nobody has any suggestions or criticisms, this
> protoproposal will be made into a full proposal next nweek.
> I don't propose:
> {{
> __Redefinition__
> Replace rule 13 [[r13/3, __Definitions__]] with:
> {{
> __Abstract Objects__ {*(Definitions, Abstract, Objects),2*}
> A Game Object is anything which exists within the context of the game,
> that is, its existence must be mandated by the ruleset; the term
> Object shall be an unambiguous synonym for Game Object in all game
> documents except where specified otherwise. [[Note that this does not
> require the object's definition to be in the ruleset; an object could
> be defined by reference to an outside Document]]

Try to find a word other than "mandated".  "Mandate" as a verb 
means "to make mandatory", so a rule-mandated object would be 
one that the rules require to exist.  I suspect you would 
include players, societies, proposals and a few other things 
as game objects, yet, while it's convenient to the operation 
of the game that they exist, they cannot be conveniently 
mandated to do so.

Perhaps "sanctioned"?

> An External Force is anything which exists independantly of the game.
> An Outsider is an External Force which is also an Object. [[ i.e.,
> something that exists outside of the game but is also acknowledge by
> the rules as influencing the gamestate, and thus exists within the
> game as well, such as a player]]

Joel and his machine influence the gamestate, and are 
mentioned indirectly in Rule 0.  Not sure I'd refer to them as 
a "force", though.

> A Game Document is a body of text specified as a Game Document by the
> Rules. Game Documents are Game Objects. [[ which is true by
> definition, but we might as well be safe and state it.]] }}

This doesn't read suggests the text exists first, 
and then the rules reference it as a game document.  
Alternately, it's redundant, since I assume you intend it to 
be part of the rules.  How about something like, "A Game 
Document is a type of Object consisting of a body of text.  
Game Documents can only exist or be created in accordance with 
the rules."

> Replace rule 2 [[2/3, __Names__]] with:
> {{
> __Names__ {*(Definitions, Abstract, Objects),2*}
> All distinguishable Game Objects should have unique identifiers.
> Objects indistinguishable from each other need not have separate
> identifiers [[So a players points don't need to be named separately,
> but different players do]].

What about gnomes with different hit points (assuming the 
gnome prop gets passed)?  They're not indistinguishable from 
each other.  Would they need serial numbers in their names 
(interesting if unweildy idea), or would they be identified by 
their attribute values (and then what happens when two gnomes 
ARE indistinguishable)?

> An abbreviation or nickname for an object may be used in place of its
> identifier provided that the context makes it unambiguous which object
> is being referred to. }}
> Replace rule 14 [[r14/1, __Forfeit__]] with:
> {{
> __Players__ {*(Definitions, Player, ProposingEntity, LostSoul), 2*}
> A Player is an Outsider who consents to be governed by the rules,
> fulfills all requirements for playerhood specified by the rules, and
> has become a player in a manner specified by the rules.
> An External Force may become a Player by posting a message to a Public
> Forum containing a request to become a player and a uniquely
> identifying name that e wishes to be known by. It may do this if and
> only if it fulfills the following requirements: * It is capable of
> passing the Turing Test * It is either not already a Game Object, or a
> Lost Soul * It has a working e-mail address

Ya know...the above requirements could well belong to an 
entire other nomic...they could get together and vote on what 
responses to make on a turing test, and if it's over email it 
could actually pass...

> A Player may cease to be a player by Forfeiting the game; this must be
> done in a Public Forum unless there are no working public fora, in
> which case e may notify the administrator privately instead. The
> Administrator must report the Forfeiture as soon as possible if this
> happens.

If there are no public fora, don't we have a state of 

> No restrictions may be placed on when a player may forfeit; any player
> may forfeit the game at any time (regardless of the clock, the watch,
> etc.)
> When a Player ceases to be a player for any reason, e loses all game
> defined properties and attributes except for eir Name, and becomes a
> Lost Soul. Lost Souls are game objects.

Spoilsport. :)

> Players are Limited PEs.
> }}

How about layering the definitions (like PE) so that they're 
added as a general case for other objects and a specific case 
for existing objects, as you've generally done up to this 
point?  As in, worry about what a PE (or even a limited PE) is 
after you've defined a PE?

I know, it's all self-referential.  Still, somehow I suspect 
the definition of a player is gonna be pretty high up in the 
food chain, and is a prerequisite for the concept of a 
proposing entity.

Enough for now.  I'll look at the rest later.

The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.

spoon-discuss mailing list