Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 07:09  PM, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:44:26PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> > According to r1592, what 'the application of a single rule' means is
> > that 'The circumstances prevailing in the state of the subgame can 
> > only
> > be affected as described in the rule which defines that subgame. '
> > However, the circumstances prevailing in the state of the Go game can
> > be affected by at least one other rule - Forfeiture. (or would you
> > claim that the absence of one of the players doesn't change the state
> > of the subgame?)
>
> So then the rule doesn't prevent all of Go from working - it only
> prevents the state of the game being affected by forfeiture.

No; the rule doesn't say the state can only be affected as described by 
the rule; it says that the subgame must be application of a single 
rule, and defines that to mean that the state can only be affected as 
described by a single rule. So if this passes

> > Anyway, the shelve vote stands regardless, because the prop doesn't
> > actually address the issue of quitting players - what happens to their
> > stones? Who owns them, who gets the points at the end of the game, who
> > are they now allied to, etc.?
>
> Well, it looks like that just got decided automatically. If a player
> forfeits, not a damn thing happens. Their stones remain on the board,
> and their allies remain their allies.

But the list of allies is a list of players; I can't be allied to you 
if you're not a player.

Also note that you never actually specified that a stone is owned by a 
player iff that player played the stone.

Personally, I feel that r1592 is a Bad Idea in general. There are many 
situations when we might want a subgame to take up multiple rules; and 
there's no reason why we can't put subgames into single rules anyway. 
This is just an irritating restriction that does nothing until it 
starts pissing us off.

I was thinking about setting up a general structure for stones-laying 
games - define a grid, a stone, etc., and things like Go and Othello 
could use it to shorten their own definitions; but it falls apart 
because of 1592, unless Go, Othello, and Ataxx are all in the same rule 
(which is ugly and stupid).

--
Wonko

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