spoon-discuss: Re: proosal

[Antonio <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:41:51 -0500, "Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> >> __Game State Reigns Supreme__
>> >> {{Changes to the Game state may only be made as permitted by the rules}}
>> >> 
>> [comments]
>>
>> Well, to tell you the truth, I missed your proposal among all the mail I
>> get for the game, still I believe my version is better: it does away with
>> the problem of overriding and deferring just by stating the obvious (I'm
>> sure Gavin will hate it)
>>
>Uh... what are you talking about? Why would I hate this? Like Rob says - it does just the same as his. So I don't think it should be necessary (except under the "braindead" r18 interpretation) (because I think that anything that's part of the gamestate is, by definition, regulated, and thus r18 doesn't apply), but... hate it?
>
I just thought you'd deem it "non necessary" like the rule 10 you tried
many times to repeal :)

>> while still placing the game state out of reach as
>> far as rule 18 is concerned. It's more effective this way (and also more
>> elegant IMHO)
>>
>You think *this* is more elegant? That's pretty funny. Rob's is a true piece of nomic poetry, which I'll be voting for just for the sake of having it in the rules, even though I don't think it's needed. This is... well, it's OK, I suppose, but it pales in comparison.

uh, well, OK. 

>Negative feedback: what Rob said. His is more elegant, less potentially problematic, and, of course, first.

very well, since i'm currently on forced leave my proposal never really
existed, and I'll keep it that way.

Thus was peace in BNomic restored.


-- 
Antonio

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com