Orc In A Spacesuit on 4 Apr 2003 16:55:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Prop 1434

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

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

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

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