Re: [spoon-discuss] societies and corporations discussion

["Baron von Skippy" <baronvonskippy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> *sigh* Okay, first of all, I'd like to apologize for the generally pissy 
> tone last night.  My response to your proposal wasn't as much logical as it 
> was territorial.  M-Tek is sort of my baby, and I sometimes think of r578 
> as my adopted child.  Let me try a more rational statement today...'

-Yeah, as a general note: I have no problems with, in fact I encourage, 
people revising vSOI or the satellite rules that make vSOI what it is. This 
proposal looks to be doing that, although I didn't see anywhere in there 
dealing with the Gnome Account or vSET, which will soon become a problem. So 
alterations are okay. However, people suggesting its destruction, especially 
as part of a blanket purge of newer, less proven and more questionably 
motivated societies, will be hunted down and tortured.
Your computer will crash just as you finish your masterpiece of a Nomic 
prop.
Trained attack squirrels will come for you as you walk down the street.
Never again will you be able to find socks that match.
I hope I need not continue with the list of horrendous things I can do to 
you if the need arises...-
> There are problems with the ruleset, yes.  This is inherent in any ruleset 
> that's gone through as many modifications as this one has.  It's like a 
> quilted hot-air balloon: it's gonna leak somewhere, and most attempts to 
> change it, while perhaps fixing some leaks, have the potential to cause 
> others.
-Especially if we keep trying to attatch patches with nail guns...-
> This isn't to say that a given rule is totally, inherently bad because 
> either a given single segment of it is bad or because someone manages to 
> use it for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.  That a 
> smashed beer bottle is a deadly weapon doesn't necessarily mean beer 
> bottles as a whole need re-engineering.
>
> There is therefore some separation between a rule and its use.  A mess can 
> be caused by a flaw in a rule, or the interaction of multiple rules, but 
> that doesn't mean the rule itself is necessarily a mess.  The rule may be 
> generally functional, generally well-formed, with relatively tiny flaws 
> that can be magnified a hundredfold in actual use.
-*grin* Or two thousand and fifty fold.-
> To declare a mess to be a mess, and to hold the person who made the mess 
> responsible for it, is one thing.  To declare a rule to be as big a mess as 
> the mess made through the exploitation of a flaw in the rule is another.  
> The person or persons responsible for the creation of said rule may take 
> some measure of offense at the suggestion that the product of their effort 
> was a total mess simply because someone managed to beat the game over the 
> head with it.
-Are we still talking about the beer bottle here?-
> A rule doesn't necessarily need a complete overhaul in order to fix a small 
> problem, especially if said overhaul includes a rehash of much of the 
> original.  If a complete overhaul is attempted, it is important to 
> understand what the purpose was of the parts of the original, so that 
> leaving something out doesn't create a bigger hole than what existed 
> before.
>
> Finally, about the "uber prop": In general, saying "there's no need for you 
> to do this now because I'm going to do it later" is neither a logical nor a 
> reasonable argument.  It's not logical because the fact that someone is 
> trying to do something now suggests e does in fact think there's a need for 
> it to be done now; that it may be fixed later doesn't change the perception 
> that it needs to be fixed now.  It's not reasonable because achievement in 
> this game is measured in action, so a player looking out for eir own 
> interests translates the statement above into "you should not try to 
> achieve something now because I want to achieve something later"; it is 
> unrealistic to expect a player to comply with this, and annoying and 
> insulting to repeatedly insist on it.
-This I agree with, this I have said. Orc, giving us the URL, even though 
I'm not likely to visit it, was a good idea. However, propose the damn thing 
already. You don't win any favor by trying to get us to hold up for a bit. 
If you need more time, declare a SOE and take a few days where you don't 
need to do anything else for this game. Past that, there's nothing to do to 
help you. It sounds like you're looking for a Theory of Everything to bind 
the parts of B Nomic under one law, but I'm afraid it doesn't exist. It's 
hard enough to make up proposals to modify one rule or idea at a time with 
this game so mutable, but such is the way of things. Why don't you propose 
the uber in bits? I mean, unless you're making it a prose haiku or 
something, your hours of work amount to 3d6 points, and it still might fail. 
Sorry, this was only supposed to be about two sentencs when I began, so it's 
probably a little confused... but then again, what's new with me?-
>

                                                  [[BvS]]

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

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