Re: [s-d] Proposal 214 concerns.

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How would you have played not-nicely?

Codae


----- Original Message ----
From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:55:51 PM
Subject: [s-d] Proposal 214 concerns.

BobTHJ,

    I am concerned about your changes to the rule numbering. I think 
everyone agrees that persistent rule numbering is important for 
historical referencing, but I think your proposal goes too far. Instead 
of numbering each rule with a persistent id, and only that id, why don't 
we keep the current system and add persistent ids? Then we get the 
benefit of a permanent historical reference, while at the same time 
maintaining the logical grouping the sections have.

    I'd suggest revising your proposal to permit the Rulekeeper to 
denote existing rules primarily by purely aesthetic numbers of his 
choosing to make for more logical organization while leaving the 
persistent number there as well.

    For example:
      Section 3: General
          Rule 3-1: The Temporal Prime Directive (4e28)
          {rule text}
    as opposed to:
      Section 3: General
      4e28: The Temporal Prime Directive

The current system is better organized and aesthetically pleasing than 
your proposed system, and we shouldn't scrap that when we upgrade.

Thanks to Billy Pilgrim for convincing me how both systems could be 
combined without loss to either, and for convincing me to play nicely.

-- 
--
0x44;

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