Re: [spoon-discuss] Societies

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/19/02 at 2:59 PM Dan Waldron wrote:

>> What about,
>>
>> A Society may have internal rules that are binding upon its Members.
>>
>> I would interpret that as saying that the for the members of the society,
>> the internal rules *are* rules of the game.
>>
>> Besides, the default case doesn't forbid societies from changing the
>> Gamestate. It forbids *players* from changing the gamestate. Unless you
>want
>> societies to count as players, but that would be... ugh.
>
>My ruleset split will clear all this up for good.  Because it is
>explicitly prohibited by physical law for non-beings to change the
>gamestate, except as allowed to by _physical_ law.  Societies are never
>mentioned in physical law, so they can't.
>
>This is also why gnomes and such have to be done in physical law.  Because
>they need to be able to change the gamestate.
>
>Likewise, the most a society charter can do is to compel member players to
>take certain kinds of actions.  It doesn't make those actions legal, which
>can only be done by the mutable rules.
>
>Perhaps we could clear this up by describing rules in terms of permissive
>and restrictive function.  Society charters should only have restrictive
>function.

Then this is another Bad Thing.  At the moment, Societies can make proposals.  That, I believe, constitutes a change to the gamestate, inasmuch as the set of proposals and the ballot are considered part of the gamestate.

It's starting to look like your master rule is gonna require all sorts of exceptions just to preserve the status quo.

						Glotmorf


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