Daniel Lepage on 31 Jul 2003 01:16:44 -0000

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

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

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).


spoon-discuss mailing list