[spoon-discuss] Wonko Replies...

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay, I'm still on leave, but I have a brief blop of free time here, so I'm
going to mount some replies to some of what's been said lately before I
disappear again:

------------------------------------

Glotmorf, on the Force problem:

> Actually, this is a non-issue.  The precedence rule
> says things that come later in a rule take precedence
> over things that come earlier in the same rule, so the
> thing that says we can spend our force cap to advance
> takes precedence over that which says we can't spend
> more than our budget.
> 
> And I'd agree with the context thang about points.
> Otherwise I could rewrite the M-Tek charter, take all
> the bandwidth accumulated there, and spend that to
> advance myself...

As for context, I'm not sure we can go with that, because score points are
not actually called 'score points' - their official title is "points". I
would intepret the word "points" to always mean score unless specified
otherwise.

As for the precedence thing, the bit about not exceeding the force cap comes
later in the rule, and therefore takes precedence. It's right at the
beginning of the Force Abilities section.

------------------------------------

Glotmorf, on Overlords:

> And nobody petitioned.  No one asked for anything.
> Not even the abolition of the rule, or my own
> abdication.

Dude, we CAN'T petition you to repeal the rule. It says itself, at the end
of the rule, that only proposals may modify or repeal it. That was the whole
point of my proposal - to allow us to then petition you to at the very least
lower its chutzpah.

------------------------------------

Dave, on the end of the nweek:

> Wonko loses 5 Style for failure to surrender the Pink Scarf.

Whoops. Doesn't that not happend 'til this nweek?

------------------------------------

Glotmorf, on my Overlord Fix prop"
> No, on the grounds of the "otherwise".  You know how I feel about cheesy rule
> changes.

Given that you set up the rule in question in such a way that cheesy rule
changes are the ONLY way to change it, I'm not sure that I do know how you
feel about them. Either denounce them or encourage them, but please don't do
both.

------------------------------------

And now some thoughts of my own:

************************************

On Layers:

The two biggest advantages of layers, IMHO, are that rules can be made which
only influence rules on a certain layer, and that rules which should always
supercede everything are easily implemented. I defend my first point with
the claim that it worked well in the Suberian set, although Suber only had
two levels - immutable and mutable. I plan on proposing to put some rules on
different levels and to make levels affect how they can be changed as soon
as I finish writing this message.
    For my second point, I contend that rule 0 would be much better off in a
level by itself, so that even if we make lots of rules with various
chutzpahs, it will always be more powerful. This is easier to implement and
less prone to error than proposing to raise rule 0's chutzpah everytime it's
no longer the highest, giving it an absurd chutzpah so it will be highest
for a while, or adding to it a clause that increases its chutzpah every time
anything gets up that high.
    For the most part, I don't expect there will be more than maybe three
levels - the normal rules, the 'immutable' rules (i.e., the fundamentals of
the game, like what a player is, etc.), and the backup rules like r0.

************************************

On Insta-Props:

Orc claims that these would not be an organizational nightmare, and supports
this with the claim that other Nomics have run their entire proposal systems
off of this. To those claims I say that the important word in that sentence
is "entire". While I can see how it would be manageable to have
proposal-based voting periods rather than a periodic system, it would be
less manageable than either method to implement *both* of these systems
simultaneously. Although the Insta-Prop idea has merit, it should be put in
as a replacement to the current system, rather than a supplement to it.

************************************

On Armies:

The repurchasing bit seems kind of dangerous... remember those times when I
managed to take all the BNS out of the bank? If that were to happen again,
what would stop the rich player from buying up every army on the grid, as
nobody would have anywhere near the neccessary resources to stop em? Of
course, given that armies don't do anything yet except hit each other, this
wouldn't be a particularly good way to spend one's BNS, but if something
gets proposed later which makes armies enormously useful, this could be a
Bad Thing...

************************************

On Grid Ministration:

My program is far behind schedule, and I don't think it will be finished
anytime soon. In the interrim, though, I had an idea about something which
might make the Grid much easier for us to track - what if it actually were
tracked by an 'us'? Right now, the Min of gnomes, that of Insta-Rules, and
that of Gnomes are all a bit redundant - everything they need to track needs
to be tracked by the Grid Minister, as all of these things influence nothing
save the Grid. Why not, then, set up a Grid Minister club (not an actual
society, as they have lots of features this doesn't need), and put *it* in
charge of updating the grid page? Then all the current Grid-related
Ministers could be put into this club, and each of them would be able to
recognize and update everthing related to eir ministry, and so when someone
uses the Force to move a Grape-Koolaid Gnome, it would only need to be
recognized by me; There'd be no reason for Dave to also recognize the
Gnome-moving part of it.

************************************

Okay, that's all for the time being... proposals coming soon.

-- 
Wonko

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