Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/26/02 at 5:15 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>>> Okay, enough of that. On to some other stuff:
>>>
>>> First of all, I think we need a constitution. I'm
>>> looking around, and it
>>> occurs to me that, for example, r0 is no longer as
>>> powerful as it once was,
>>> as it now has the least Serial Chutzpah. That makes
>>> me nervous. Might it not
>>> be a good idea to, say, turn all rules numbered less
>>> than 100 into some sort
>>> of Constitution? Perhaps proposals that modify them
>>> would require a greater
>>> majority to pass, and non-Const rules would always
>>> defer to them?
>>
>> Layers.  The ruleset should, perhaps, have layers,
>> each layer containing one or more rules.  Lower layers
>> defer to higher layers, and rules in the same layer
>> duke it out with each other.
>>
>> Chutzpah attempts to do this, but it's too easy to
>> just slap another zero onto the new rule's chutzpah
>> number.  Make it necessary that a new rule be placed
>> into a layer, even if a layer has to be created or
>> inserted for it, and attach a certain level of
>> difficulty to the creation of a new layer, or the
>> movement of a rule from one layer to another.
>>
>> We can even, for the geometrically inclined, introduce
>> cells to layers, which can contain multiple rules that
>> relate to each other (to break up some of those
>> monsters), and which can even have layers of their
>> own.
>>
>> Dan tried to do something like this, didn't he, with
>> three layers?  I say, why stop at three?  At the
>> moment, for all practical purposes, the ruleset
>> consists of a mess of layers, each containing one
>> rule.
>
>The problem with Dan's, though, was that it did some fundamental reworking
>of the game that nobody really trusted, involving some weird distinctions
>between rules that forced people to do things and rules that merely
>required
>people to do things (?), and that turned people against it. A better idea,
>I
>would think, would be to create a bunch of layers originally with nothing
>in
>them, except for maybe two layers, and then we could move things around
>later.

How many empty layers do we need?  If we're only filling two, how about starting with one topmost, one bottommost and one in between the filled ones?

>>> Two nweeks later, the toad
>>> Foobar is still in the Siren's range, so e Makes
>>> Whoopee again.
>>> A toadly 3 is rolled again.
>>> What happens?
>>
>> Encapsulation:
>> 1. "for 4 nweeks" is an absolute, and further toadings
>> are irrelevant during it.
>>
>> 2. "for 4 nweeks" relates to the most recent toading,
>> if toadings are layered.
>>
>> 3. "for 4 nweeks" means four additional nweeks after
>> the current toading ends.
>>
>>> Anyone have any opinions? I can't figure out how to
>>> effectively CFI this
>>> (that's one of the advantages of the Suberian system
>>> - the Judge just
>>> 'decides' on the issue, instead of having to judge
>>> TRUE or FALSE on a
>>> statement).
>>
>> I'd say #2 is the clear choice.  Someone gets toaded,
>> e stays that way for four nweeks; that e was toaded
>> before is irrelevant, so that e would have been
>> untoaded in two nweeks is too.  In that instance, I'd
>> say that since the rule doesn't say toading has a
>> cumulative effect, toading doesn't have a cumulative
>> effect; cumulativeness (?) would be an effect over and
>> above that stated in the rule.
>
>But it says, 'for 4 nweeks'... this implies that for each time a player
>gets
>toaded, e should spend 4 nweeks for it. Under number 2, e'd only have spent
>3 nweeks per toading, a violation of the rule.

Ah.  Now I see what the question needs to be, and it's reminiscent of the old DimShip crisis: Under what circumstances does a rule conflict with itself, and what standard guidelines can be implemented in anticipation of this?

I'd still go with #2, though, since, yes, it said 4 nweeks for the prior toading, but it also says 4 nweeks for the current toading, so I'd say the current event takes priority over the past one, if there's nothing else to go by.

>> I'd still like to see a default provision for
>> dictionary use, but other than that it looks okay.
>>
>> Would you define the Administrator in terms of eir
>> powers and responsibilities in the same rule or
>> another?
>
>Perhaps the whole thing should be in a separate rule?

Perhaps the base definitions should be in a rule (dare I say an upper-layer one?), while things like players and the Administrator should be in separate rules that reference the first one.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix1.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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