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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/8/02 at 6:33 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>>> 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.

That was a flaw in the Football rule.  Most non-fungible objects in the game that have any significance acknowledge the possibility of nuking by having "If this doesn't exist, make one" clauses.  Something similar should have been tacked onto the ball.  Would not a bomb gnome have done something similar?

There are things we can throw in, if we must, I suppose.  Like giving notice in advance of an actual bulldozing.  Course, we'll need a basement in which to put a box labelled "Beware of the Leopard"...

>>> 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.

Hm.  We'll need a nest of terms, actually.  I figured they could be stuck into r6 as they were composed...

1. Something that means "anything in the game".  This would include rules, gnomes, players, whatever.

2. Something that means "anything that can take actions".  This excludes rules, includes players and societies and all, and leaves something open.

3. Something that means "anything that is typically regarded in quantity with no regard for individual identity."  That'll be gnomes, shillings, et al.

And other things that identify specific categories of "anything in the game".

>>> 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.

Ya know...that rule only has a chutzpah of 1...

						Glotmorf


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