Re: [spoon-discuss] Prop 1434

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

> From: Glotmorf <nomicmorf@xxxxxxxxx>
> Item 2: Doesn't this take away the argument you were
> making before about automation scripts being a
> cure-all?

In my opinion, and in Dave's as well appearently, NO ONE should 'play' 
without actually doing things themselves, whether by society or by 
automation script.  If a player is playing, then they should, by definition, 
actually play.

> Item 3: Taking away any requirement that a member of a
> society obeys that society's rules means membership in
> a society carries no responsibility.

The society can kick the member out.  Any responsibility more than that, do 
we want societies having?  And I fail to see how that's any different at all 
from a member being able to leave if they don't want to do something.

> You said
> automation scripts can be used to grant a society the
> right to command its members to do things, but a
> society can't require that said automation script be
> created.

Yup.  That's right.  The society could make it a condition that the 
automation script be set in order to be a member.  Again, I fail to see how 
this is different from the society ordering it and the member simply saying 
"no" and leaving.

> This also prevents the formation of any sort
> of society-based subgame, such as Wonko has been
> trying to do for a while, because the members of the
> society would not be obligated to follow the subgame's
> rules.

Oh yes they would.  If they don't, the society can inflict punishments, like 
declaring the member a loser in the subgame, refusing to include the errrant 
member in points dispersal or other such things, or simply kicking the 
member out.

> Also, I don't see the point of adding "or a rule" to
> "A society does not take actions unless its charter
> dictates that it does."

The point is if the societies rule says that a society can do "only 
blahblahblah", and another rule dictates that the society does something 
other than blahblahblah, the rules are in conflict, and nobody likes rules 
in conflict.

> That's a redundancy, since anything in the context of the game has to obey 
> the rules (see r10).

But if the the societies rule says "only blahblahblah", then doing 
/anything/ else would be _not_ following the rules.  Therefore, the 
societies rule and the other rule would be in conflict, bringing in all the 
nasty chutzpah/layer/serial number mess into play.

> It also creates a circular argument,
> since the first part of the subsection says a society
> can take certain actions limited by the restrictions,
> but the restrictions say a society can take an action
> if a rule permits it, and lo! the earlier part of the
> rule permits it.  This is a muddling logic loop that I
> could see being CFId either way.

I don't follow.

Orc in a Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________


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