Baron von Skippy on 8 Aug 2002 02:39:04 -0000

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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Too quiet, bd?

Are you trying to do the Forth thang, and rewrite the entire ruleset as one big rule? Interesting, but impractical, unlikely to pass and unnecessary.

Impractical because unless you're gonna come up with rule-adding mechanisms that force new rule text to be part of The Big One, the grand unification will become ununified every nweek.
-Not to mention that the Ruleset already IS a single object, so rather than make a complex system, just find a definition that fits the current state of things.-

Unlikely to pass because Big Change is generally feared. A person looks at a nine-page prop, picks his jaw up off the floor, and, after the third pass, wonders what there is in it that he's missing...what hidden loophole is embedded in it that gives its proponent an insta-win.
-Like bd's Less is More: Voting, for example. (BTW, bd, that was very clever, just slimy.) For the newbies: bd rewrote voting, but hid a few clauses that would have given him supreme power over what passed and failed.-

Unnecessary because, okay, you've got everything in one big rule, identified by subsections, with nested scope. How is that fundamentally different from bunches of smaller rules, identified by numbers, with nested precedence?
-Again, back to my first thing. Redefine what we have without changing it.-

Not to discourage you. I was toying with the idea of a game dictionary today myself. It's got promise. But I think you'll have more luck (and, for that matter, get more points) by making a fairly empty framework first, then moving things into the framework on a piecemeal basis.

Something I wondered about once before...If the entire ruleset winds up in a single rule object, how can it be stored in a database? Or can it?
-Duct tape.-



Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

spoon-discuss mailing list