Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anyhow, the rule specifies what happens when a Player is Thrown. When other
stuff gets chucked around, this rule cares not.

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> Contextual thang.  "Thrown" was defined explicitly in the context of that
> rule, and capitalized to make it significant.  Since all uses of "Thrown" are
> capitalized in the rule in the same way as the defined "Thrown" was, I'd rule
> (should it come to that) that it was the same kind of Throwing used
> throughout.
> 
> Which means it's a good thing I used an uncapitalized "thrown" in my rule. :)
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> On 1/31/02 at 4:07 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
>> OK, that makes sense to a point, but it's also not clear that the second
>> Throw is of the same type as the first (i.e. randomized, Elbonian style).
>> We've seen other kinds of Throws defined by action (e.g. throwing a
>> Gremlin on the Grid) and proposals on the current ballot (e.g. ballistic
>> Gremlins).  These Throws are accurate and non-Elbonian.
>> 
>> --Scoff!
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:59 PM
>>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Right.  So since it's highly unlikely e'll hit the square e
>>> was thrown at the first time, it's also highly unlikely e'll
>>> hit the square e's thrown at the next time.  So e won't be
>>> perpetually bouncing up and down on the same Impassable
>>> Object.  Much more likely e'll go bouncing off lots of
>>> different Impassable Objects in succession.
>>> 
>>> Glotmorf
>>> 
>>> On 1/31/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e
>>>> requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest
>>>> antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is
>>>> occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the
>>> player landed on,
>>>> not the one e aimed at.
>>>> 
>>>> --Scoff!
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
>>>>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like
>>> "If a player,
>>>>>> after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by
>>>>> an Impassable
>>>>>> Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the
>>> landing]] and is
>>>>>> Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.
>>> Fly  Elbonian
>>>>>> Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --Scoff!
>>>>> 
>>>>> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways
>>>>> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But
>>>>> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Glotmorf
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 





-- 
Wonko
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.