Re: [s-d] [s-b] More bandwagoning

[Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I request 2 Day Unanimous Consent for my Motion to Add.
>
> (Srsly, though, are we sure that A wasn't just as badly broken?  If
> we're saying it isn't because we're not being pedantic, then is B
> still playable under the same standards?)

>From what I can tell, A was conceived as being completely
anti-Platonic from the beginning, with Joel explicitly rejecting nomic
rules acting like laws of physics and statements to the effect that
anything is possible, but the rules can make some things illegal and
order players to reverse illegal things appearing during the time the
game was forming.  While a bit of platonism may have crept in (for
example, ntime is defined platonically in terms of 10 day periods
since the start of the game), and some things are ambiguous from just
reading the ruleset (like how it seems that maybe one platonically
becomes a Player 2 days after requesting unanimous consent, but
there's a Motive Order directing the Administrator to add you to the
Roster as well, and pragmatism you imply you're a player when the
Roster comes to say you are), I think a strict pragmatic game can't
become as broken as B is.  In any event there's a statute of
limitations that seems, to me, to make any documents more than 2
nweeks old platonically correct, and it's been hundreds of nweeks
since anything was published.

Still, personally I'd prefer the New Game route, since A's ruleset is
loaded with stuff even the players way back in 2001 didn't want to
recordkeep.
-- 
Wooble
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss