Re: [spoon-discuss] a different society fix

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 11/16/02 at 9:36 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>
> >> > Change the sentence "A Society is a group of one or
> >> > more entities who are
> >> > Members of the Society."
> >> > to
> >> > "A Society is a group of zero or more entities.
> >> > These entities are the
> >> > Members of the Society."
> >> > [[This allows for 0-member societies, as specified
> >> > by the rules]]
> >>
> >>No.  Societies are collections of members.  Memberless
> >>societies are pointless.
> >
> >If a rule specifies that a memberless society exists, this makes sure 
> that
> >a
> >paradox isn't created.
>
> A paradox wouldn't be created.  Depending on the rule-numbering method in 
> use, either the society-specifying rule would take precedence, or the 
> society one would.

I believe precedence is there for the prohibitions and stuff, and should not 
be depended on for everything.  As for a paradox, you could have the society 
shifting back and forth between whether or not is a society indefinitly, or 
you could have an infinite amount created, as soon as the previous one 
becomes not a society.  But I stand primarily by my opinion that rules 
should not need the precedence stuff to be sorted out.

> >> > Change the sentence "Actions in this rule are not
> >> > the only actions that
> >> > societies may take."
> >> > to
> >> > "Societies may only take actions explictly permitted
> >> > em in the rules."
> >>
> >>This borders on not allowing charters any variance in
> >>a society's actions.  This, under my version of the
> >>society rule, would be equivalent to only permitting
> >>standard methods to be used.
> >
> >Standard Methods are a bit, um, stodgy.  No offence.  Plus, I hope to 
> make
> >lots of actions be permitted by societies (and other entities) in the
> >rules
> >later, and expect others may too.  Defining an action and defining a very
> >similar Standard Method would be very inefficient.
>
> Not what I meant.  I myself wouldn't want to be confined to standard 
> methods.  Nor would I want to be confined to "actions explicitly permitted 
> em in the rules", because that could be interpreted to mean a charter 
> couldn't specify the circumstances under which the action could be 
> performed.

Oops.  I forgot that Standard Methods didn't have to be the only thing 
allowed.  But still, I don't feel they are necessary.  As for that 
interpertation part, I don't follow.  Please explain.

> >> > Change the sentence "In this rule, all Dimensions
> >> > are Properties, and Points
> >> > and Entropy, if they are not Dimensions, are
> >> > Properties too."
> >> > to
> >> > "In this rule, all Dimensions are Properties, and
> >> > Points, BNS and Entropy,
> >> > if they are not Dimensions, are Properties too."
> >>
> >>I still don't see why properties are necessary.  Just
> >>give societies dimensions, alrady.  Hell, even let
> >>them score wins.
> >
> >BNS is not a dimension.  Score is not a dimension.  I wanted brevity.
> >That
> >is why I use 'property'.  As for actually giving them the dimensions, 
> they
> >did not have them before; also, I feel that the 'charm' etc of a society
> >is
> >the charm of its members; if it's members are respeceted, so is the
> >society;
> >if the society acts mischieviously, its members appear mischievious.
>
> In that case, why not say societies have dimensions that are the averages 
> of its members' dimensions?  That way, if all of a society's members are 
> drunk as skunks, the society is skunked too.

With this, I kinda agree.  But this prop is just a fix (as opposed to my 
first one); a fix is just getting things working right.  That would be a 
change to the way things work.  I may do that seperatly, or someone else 
can.  I hope that anyone who does carefully examine the rules on dimensions 
before writing, and gives everyone ample time to look it over.

> >> > Change the senctence "Once per nweek, a Player may
> >> > create a Society, giving
> >> > it a uniquely identifying name."
> >> > to
> >> > "Each Player may, once per nweek, create a Society,
> >> > at which time e must
> >> > give it a uniquely identifying name.  The given name
> >> > must not misrepresent
> >> > the gamestate or attempt to do so; if it does, the
> >> > Administrator may Rectify
> >> > it and all references to it."
> >>
> >>If I can't create a society with a particular name, I
> >>would rather fail to create it than have someone else
> >>change it without my consent.
> >
> >However, if someone creates a society and does other things based on the
> >society's creation, they may be quite unhappy if it ends up not being
> >created, especially if the actions they take give away eir plans (like 
> the
> >Bomb Gnome Speeder Throw I orchestrated earlier, or any of the attempts 
> at
> >game breaking some members take regularly).
>
> I'm not sure I feel sympathetic to someone who attempts to orchestrate a 
> massive scam using an insta-society and fails due to a typo.  I think I 
> would instead consider that entertainment.

With that, I totally agree.  However, that still leaves people doing 
legitamate things that could be foiled by others knowing what they are 
doing.  What if, say, two players are setting up an 'escrow service' 
society, and use it to trade some things multiple times, and then, as a 
result one of them is able to aquire an airspeeder with weaponry, which e 
uses on someone's airspeeder that has valuable items inside?  The owner of 
the targeted airspeeder could move out of range, simply because they 
unwittingly made a society that misrepresented something about the game 
state.  With my method, the society still exists, and the same things can be 
done with it.  If the new name isn't liked, and it actually matters, someone 
can propose to change it, or even propose to allow a society to change its 
name on its own.

> >> > Change the sentence "Unless e specifies otherwise,
> >> > the creator of a society
> >> > becomes a member of that Society upon its creation."
> >> > to
> >> > "If e chooses, the creator of a Society may declare
> >> > emself to be a member
> >> > upon creation, in which case is is the only member
> >> > upon creation; otherwise,
> >> > the society has no members upon creation."
> >>
> >>Does this mean the society exists immediately upon
> >>creation?
> >
> >I think that's implicit in the word 'create'.
>
> Well, that wasn't the case before, and it allows insta-societies.  Is this 
> a good thing?

'case before'?  Please enlighten me.  'insta societies': people can agree to 
do stuff at any time.  big deal.

Respectfully,
Orc In A Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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