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

[bd <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 08 October 2002 06:33 pm, Wonko wrote:
> 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.

Deactivate the anti-retroactiviy rule, retroactively deactivate it, 
retroactively remove the society, retroactively reactivate the 
anti-retroactivity rule.

-- 
bd
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.

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