Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] something constructive

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 10/7/02 at 11:36 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
> 
>> Ok, enough ranting, I'm gonna do something constructive now.
>> Dave, I do all this to reduce your headaches.
>> 
>> I make the following proposal:
>> {{__Bailing the Water, Not Fixing the Hull__
>> Deactivate Rule 946, __B Nomic Stock Exchange__
>> [[I think it's patched up, but nobody's using it pretty much, and I still
>> think it's a minefield.]]
> 
> One nweek goes by, and "nobody's using it pretty much"?  How long since
> someone made a Judgment Prop, or an Offer?  Or siren bait?  Please keep things
> in perspective.

Wow, I thought this rule was already deactivated!

Hmm.....

>> Deactivate Rule 1077, __Mining The Grid__
>> [[Fix it up Glotmorf, you have the fixings of something real good here.
>> Just not yet.  This fixes the 'spend 70 BNS to destroy just about
>> anything'
>> problem']]
> 
> *ahem*  That's not a bug.  It's a feature. :)

It is, however, a bit too powerful. Case and point: the game of Football is
over due to destruction of the ball.

>> Repeal Rule 6, __Game Definitions__
>> [[This gets rid of the 'everything must have uniquely identifying names'
>> problem; those definitions are flawed anyway, and by being #6 breaks the
>> rules about numbers.
>> This, by the way is another one that only Wonko and I voted against.  Must
>> not rant, must not rant....]]
> 
> It most certainly does not get rid of the "everything must have uniquely
> identifying names" problem.  Rule #2 still says everything must have uniquely
> identifying names, and most of the things in my CFI other than points have
> been defined as objects for rather a long time.  Someone could have made the
> same CFI several nweeks ago regarding gnomes, but all that's on the other side
> of the statute of limitations now.  Rule 6 only makes the debate slightly less
> subjective than it might be otherwise.  "Entity" is defined in the dictionary
> as something that exists.  The rules that define those fungible objects say
> said objects "exist".  Hence, the problem always has been there.
> 
> Rule 6 doesn't need fixing.  Rule 2 does.
> 
> And what do you mean that rule 6 "breaks the rules about numbers"?  Rule 5
> says, "Proposals, Rules and other objects requiring serial numbers, unless
> specified by the entities that create them, are assigned unique identification
> numbers that consist of the smallest integer that is larger than the largest
> identification number in use at the time of the object's creation."  The key
> phrase in there is, "unless specified by the entities that create them."
> Well, I specified.  So did my proposal.
> 
> If yer gonna rant, guy, please do so coherently.

I don't agree that r2 was a problem before r6; I think that what you define
as an "entity" in r6 ought really to be called an "object", or perhaps a
"Game Object" just to be clear. Then, anything which is capable of taking
actions independantly of the rules (my wording could use some work here)
would be considered an "Entity", and indeed, all such objects do have unique
names - players, the Admin, Societies, Gremlins.


>> Remove all members of Wonko's Slaves, except Wonko.  If any change of
>> points
>> or BNS happened as a result of membership in Wonko's Slaves, undo those
>> changes.
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to block the creation of the society via a proposal, as
> is described in the societies rule?

That's retroactive - you can't prevent it from ever existing if it already
has.



-- 
Wonko

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