Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] All right Glottie, here you go:

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 10/5/02 at 12:57 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
> 
>> If not doing so would cause the destruction of anything, I do the
>> following:
>> 
>> For every object, entity, item, value, score, and thing, other than
>> players,
>> I change it's name to it's original name plus " X", where X is an integer
>> equal to the X of the last element I successfully changed the name of +1,
>> if
>> I can for that object, entity, item, value, score, or thing.
>> 
>> I highly suggest that Dave ignore this whole mess.  Maybe even issue a
>> writ
>> or something, I dunno.  Thank goodness my uber prop fixes this whole mess,
>> too bad it's not done yet.
> 
> See, there's a couple problems with the whole naming-one's-points thang:
> 
> 1. Giving a point a name would be a change to the game state.  There's nothing
> that says one can give a point a name.  Therefore, giving a point a name is in
> violation of the default case.
> 
> 2. My CFI said that all those interchangable parts ceased to exist as of the
> beginning of nweek 24.  Which means, if my statement is true, the points are
> already gone and therefore not there for you to name.
> 
> As for not destroying anything, Dave's sanity was sounding a bit brittle there
> for a time...

Here's my argument, reached after much deliberation:

Rule 6 states that all 'things' in the context of the game are entities.
Rule 2 states that all entities must have uins.
As of Rule 6's enactment, there were things without uins that suddenly were
entities.
There are two ways this could have been solved:
1) The unnamed entities could cease to be entities
2) The unnamed entities could be named.

 (1) is obviously illegal - they're defined to be entities by the rules, and
there's nothing that can be done to undefine them as entities without
breaking those rules.
 That leaves us with (2). As there is no rule which forbids the naming of
entities, (2) is a viable option, and indeed, must have happened, because
all entities must have uins.

However, rule 2 only states that all entities must have uins. It does not
say who must provide these uins.

As per rule 25 ("The Administrator is responsible for all game duties not
assigned by the Rules to other players."), the duty then falls to the Admin
to name all unnamed entities uniquely.

What you have done, Glotmorf, is not destroy the gamestate, but merely give
the Admin a lot of work to do.

My advice to the Admin, which is probably unneccessary as what I'm about to
say is pretty obvious, but I'm going to say it anyway:
    Issue a blanket statement to the effect that you hearby name all unnamed
entities in a random arbitrary order such that each of these entities is now
named, "XXXX n", where XXXX is the type of object which that entity is, and
n is the number of entities of that type that have already been named, plus
one.


So Glotmorf, was this actually the intent of your Rule 6? Or was it
something you realized after the fact?


-- 
Wonko

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