Daniel Lepage on 18 Apr 2003 13:26:00 -0000

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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Athena's Society

On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 01:25  AM, Glotmorf wrote:

The sentence "Names given to game entities or types of game entities must be unique" could be (and I suspect was intended to be) interpreted to mean the giving of names to entities upon their creation. If a player changes eir name, e's not being given a name, but is in fact altering an existing name for emself.

Hmmm... I suspect that rather that is not the case - otherwise, what stops me from also changing my name to Athena? Or, for that matter, to "all of its members"? Remember, "M-Tek performs an action upon all of its Members stating it does." Or how about "all members of vSOI"? 'Cause "If all members of vSOI consent to have vSOI change its Charter, it does so."

No, I really don't think that's the intent of the rule. :)

Aside from that, I question whether an entity that ceases to exist from the point of view of the game has a bearing on the game. Mr. in a Spacesuit's proposal would change that somewhat, by making former players continue to exist in a game context, though statless; that would more likely have prevented my doing what I did than Rule 2 does.

That makes more sense.

Under the circumstances, though, I'm more inclined to put on my benevolent tyrant hat and point out that this heads off the constitutional crisis I mentioned earlier; with no Athena, there would be no way at all to change the charter or membership of Athena's Society. With Athena declared a "former player", there would be no workaround either.

It would become an idle society, until everyone in it quit. Or until somebody proposed to clean up the mess.

Just for the record, yes, I am reversing my opinion from that old "Wonko May Not Vote" issue. That may also have been illegal; at least, up until Dave declared it legal and nobody complained :)


spoon-business mailing list