Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Nweek 53 BALLOT

[Iain Scott <iop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

do we know when the checkpoint will be, yet?

cheers,
Iain

At 05:34 19/11/03, Daniel Lepage wrote:


> On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 11:58 PM, Anything McGee wrote:
>
> > > From the prop:
> > >
> > >  There exist Game Objects known as Bandwidth Chits. Any object can
> > > possess Bandwidth Chits. X Bandwidth Chits, where X is a number, may be
> > >  written as XBW.
> > >
> > >  At the beginning of each nweek, the number of Chits held by each
> > > player  becomes 10, and the number of Chits held by the Admin becomes
> > > 4, unless  another rule specifies otherwise.
> >
> > But it doesn't identify what Chits signify.  Sure, we all know, but it 
> > would still be undefined in the rules.  And anyway, I think everyone 
> > knows my position on bandwidth, so "shelve" is the best vote a prop would 
> > get, if it includes bandwidth.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean... the first part of this states that they 
> exist and are Objects, and can be possessed by other objects... the second 
> controls how many we get... if by "what Chits signify" you mean what 
> they're good for, that's covered by the definition of a general Prop:
> General Props are Proposals with a prop cost of 2BW...
>
> Which means that you have to pay two bandwidth in order to make a prop.
>
> With regards to your general feelings on bandwidth, my proposal doesn't 
> actually make any changes to the current bandwidth system, it just makes 
> everything else easier to read and deal with. This proposal is completely 
> neutral on the bandwidth issue, seeking only to better define things.
>
> > > But there's nothing worth putting in there right now;
> >
> > Then it can wait.
> >
> > > and the current structuring of the rest of the rule means that the
> > > dimension "Style" won't exist unless there's a section
> > > entitled "Style" in that rule.
> >
> > We don't have anything "worth putting in there," so we don't need a Style 
> > section.  If something necessary or desirable did exist, then we could 
> > add it; but it's a basic principle of economics that a currency (in this 
> > case Style) has no value if it is undefined.
>
> But there are things that can be done with Style, and they're defined by a 
> couple of different rules, so that Style is actually a useful currency. 
> The problem, which I didn't see when I first proposed to repeal this 
> section, is that at the moment, each Dimension is defined by a section 
> header - section B of that rule states "The following dimensions exist:" 
> and then the title of each subsequent section is the statement that the 
> dimension in question exists. Without a section there entitled "Style", 
> the dimension called "Style" doesn't exist, even though other rules may 
> reference and manipulate it; so I proposed to put the word back in so the 
> dimension would be defined.
>
> --
> Wonko
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 14/11/03

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