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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/8/02 at 7:51 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>>From: 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.....
>
>Glotmorph, what do sirens have to do with stocks?  "Nobody's using it"
>isn't
>a reason, it's just to counter people saying "But I want to screw the
>economy".  Like Wonko just did.  Again.

Yeah, well, you gave it as a reason.  You wanna deactivate stocks, fine; I had a proposal that did that just last nweek that got voted down. (You only THINK you know what "I told you so" means.)

And by the way, it's "Glotmorf", not "Glotmorph".

>> >> 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.
>
>Kinda what Wonko said.  In my uber-prop, Entities are anything capable of
>actions, whether that be players, societies, the admin, gremlins,
>whatever.
>Other stuff, like gnomes, don't do stuff themselves.  They just get acted
>upon.  And before anyone says 'well, they make PGGP and stuff', I have
>Actions defined in there too.

The sad thing is, as big as this uber-prop must be, after we've all voted no on it because of whatever 10% of it we each don't like, you're still only going to lose a modicum of points.

I'm starting to think we need to make the gains and losses for proposals proportional to their size...

						Glotmorf


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