Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Foomp

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 12:20  AM, Glotmorf wrote:

> > It's not that we recognize a 'state of emergency'; it's that a 
> > majority
> > of all players must agree that an emergency has occurred; when this
> > happens, it sets of r0.
>
> Yes, but the precedent that has been set for the agreement of players 
> is that a player says e recognizes a state of emergency; that 
> recognition is noted by the administrator and is assumed to be 
> ongoing, until either said player says e ceases to recognize a state 
> of emergency or a majority of players have recognized a state of 
> emergency.

The precedent has also been set that we're assumed to have stopped 
recognizing an emergency once whatever issue provoked it gets solved. 
So if we go by precedent, then there's no problem.

> Now, does said recognition come during gametime, as a game action?  Is 
> the recognition of a state of emergency part of the gamestate?  If so, 
> said recognition remains part of the gamestate when the game resumes 
> after the Pause, unless something changes the gamestate to remove said 
> recognition during the Pause.

Based on the wording of r0, recognition seems to be associated with an 
event. If a majority of all players agree that a given event requires 
emergency treatment, then an emergency begins. But an event can't cause 
multiple emergencies, because it either is bad or it isn't. If it is, 
r0 takes over; if not, nothing special happens.

> Strictly speaking, the only thing that keeps us from being in a state 
> of emergency right now ever since the last termination of a Process is 
> the statute of limitations.

And the fact that the state of emergency ended.

--
Wonko

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