Re: [spoon-discuss] ooh, entropy!

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 8/13/02 at 10:51 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Baron von Skippy,
>> 
>>>>>>> With the addition of three new players in this nweek, the Entropy
>> page
>>>>>>> deserves a look by, well, a few people.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wonko and Glotmorf are into the 3-syllable limit. Baron von Skippy is
>>>>> well
>>>>>>> into the 1-syllable range, but that was true before the most recent
>>>>>>> additions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Is that effective immediately or next nweek?-
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -BvS-
>>>>>> 
>>>>> -Never mind. Oh, and before anyone complains about my multisyllabic
>> words
>>>>> used in business messages after Dave said I was over the one-syllable
>>>>> limit
>>>>> (probably too late), I hadn't sen it yet. If this is still a problem,
>>>> I'll
>>>>> rerelease the messages, just make sure to leave the text of the
>> erroneous
>>>>> message in your complaint...-
>>>> 
>>>> What about your proposals this nweek?
>>>> 
>>>> Glotmorf
>>>> 
>>> -What about them? Dave didn't announce my high entropy until today. I
>> wrote
>>> 'em all before that. Unless you want me to rerelease all of my s-b
>> messages
>>> since I bought a lot of Gnomes, which ain't happening...-
>> 
>> Does high entropy matter? Yes, the entropy rule forbids you to post words
>> of
>> more than one syllable. On the other hand, you went ahead and did it
>> anyway.
>> Shows what the rules are good for.
>> 
>> It's another case of Nomic rules trying to regulate real life - the rules
>> can accept input from the real world, but they cannot directly force things
>> to happen in the real world.
>> 
>> Don't worry about Entropy restrictions. They're not really there.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
>> There is no Restriction.
> 
> But is there a spoon?  And is it a spoon-discuss or a spoon-business?
> 
> I thought the prevailing theory was that the gamestate consisted of the
> accumulation of legal actions, and that if a message posted to the public
> forum doesn't constitute a legal action it doesn't affect the gamestate, and
> therefore the mere fact that it's on the public forum doesn't mean the action
> is in fact performed...?  That what we perceive as the gamestate from seeing
> all these messages isn't necessarily what the gamestate is?
> 
> Which is why we have this rule that says, if as part of our collective
> hallucination we acted as if a given action posted to the public forum was in
> fact legal, whether or not it was, the gamestate gets adjusted to what it
> would be if that action was indeed legal.  Les'n someone objects.

But posting a message to a public forum is not a game action; it is a means
of taking game actions. Otherwise, the admin would be required to recognize
every single forum post.

If the rule said that any actions taken in such messages were ignored, that
would work, but it doesn't. It forbids us to make such messages, which is as
effective as trying to skin a weasel with a lampshade from thirty miles away
with your eyes closed - it just doesn't work.

-- 
Wonko
Skinning Weasels with eir eyes closed since before you were born.

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