Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 40 BALLOT

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

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 5/2/03 at 11:44 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
> > > From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Proposal 1472/0: Carryable Objects and Mass (Orc In a Spacesuit)
> > >
> > > No.  This is unnecessary at this time.  And it's not changed from last
> > > nweek.
> >
> > Unnecessary?  You really could say that about just about anything.  And 
> > it's not changed because no one ever said a thing negative about it.
>
> Er...I did.  That's why it was shelved.  I said it was unnecessary last 
> nweek too, and for the same reason: we don't need complexity for its own 
> sake when there are so many areas where simple functionality needs cleaning 
> up.  It's my opinion that this doesn't really enhance the usefulness and 
> playability of the grid game as much as it gives more numbers to track, 
> much like the more complex resource system did before.  If we want that 
> sort of added-on complexity, we can always do it later.  I don't think we 
> need it now.

I don't recall you saying anything against it during voting, or anytime 
since it's last revision.  I'm just trying to get some feedback here.

> > > > Proposal 1475/1: Societies get charters (Orc In a Spacesuit)
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > May I ask why?  Did you even look at what it does?  Or are you just being 
> > spiteful and 'taking my keys away'?  I'd really think you could get past 
> > that.  As I've said before, it's a very-needed fix, assuming I didn't win 
> > and fix it with my momentary lordship.  And should Wonko's related prop 
> > also pass, my prop is still applicable, because Wonko's prop leaves one of 
> > the bugs still in place.
>
> Actually, in combination with Wonko's change, your change doesn't do 
> anything.
>
> "A charter is text string which dictates the manner in which its society 
> takes actions."  The society possesses the charter, not the other way 
> around.  Therefore, unless you can somehow make a charter start its own 
> society, this line does nothing.

Does that say anything about possession?  No.  You may possess a car, and be 
_its_ owner.  You may have a child, and be _its_ parent.  'Its' does not 
specify the existance or manner of possession.

In any case, if both my and Wonko's props pass, this half is a do-nothing, 
as Wonko's prop handles it quite nicely.

> "Upon creation of a society, it has a charter. If the creator of the 
> society declares a charter upon creation of the society, it has that 
> charter; otherwise, the charter is empty."  What if a society is created by 
> a rule?  It would then have a charter, which, if the other line gets fixed 
> somehow, would dictate the manner in which the society takes 
> actions...except that the charter would be empty, and therefore the society 
> would take no actions, even if the rules said it did, until someone 
> proposed it be changed to something else.  Whereas the absence of a charter 
> would not interfere with a rule.

You say 'what if a society is created by a rule'.  Well, what if a society 
is created by player action?  Then that person is totally screwed, the way 
the rules are, and the way things will remain regardless of whether Wonko's 
prop passes or not.
Also, it says the prop's "creator".  That creator could be a proposal or a 
rule; as long as it specifies a charter, that is enough.  And even if it 
weren't enough, the prop/rule could simply specify the charter to be 
whatever it needs to be after the society is created.

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