Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Mega-Proposal (revision)

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Dan Waldron,

>>>> 
>>>> So a non-being object such as, say, a mutable rule couldn't change the
>>> game
>>>> state?
>>> 
>>> This is true.  Mutable rules cannot directly change the game state.
>>> 
>>> Mutable rules can ask the Administrator to change the gamestate via rule
>>> 25.
>>> 
>>> I know this seems weird, but if you think about it, it makes sense.  Just
>>> because someone passes a law declaring that the grass is greener on the
>>> other side it doesn't mean that the colour will change until someone
>>> actually goes out there with a paintbrush.
>> 
>> Um.  Isn't there something in the current body of rules that says the
>> gamestate is affected when an action is taken, rather than when the
>> Administrator recognizes it?
>> 
> 
> Yup.  There are lots of actions to which this applies.  Many of them are
> player actions, which are changes to the game state made by the player
> when eir message reaches the public forum.  Others are actions by various
> gremlins, gnomes, and other entites, which are usually the result of some
> sort of trigger.  But the rules themselves don't make these actions, the
> other entities do, and they are given permission to do so by the physical
> laws.

I'm worried about this proposal because it does stuff to r0, the safety net,
namely making it a mutable rule. This is problematical - r0 was designed to
be a fallback for any disaster; I don't mean to sound like I'm advocating a
deathwatch on Dave, but what happens if we suddenly have no admin? R0, in
its current form, accounts for this possibility; under your new form, it
would not - if Dave disappears, we can all declare a state of emergency, but
the gamestate won't be changed until Dave recognizes and implements those
changes...

-- 
Wonko

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