| SkArcher on 17 Jan 2004 16:14:16 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] repeal-o-prop |
SkArcher, I strongly object to stripping most of the color from the game like this. Why do you want such a bare ruleset? We'd just build back the same or similar things again, and this way we can use these things to build more interesting rules rather than starting from scratch.
I'm not stripping most of the colour from the ruleset, i'm putting it into a state where I can proceed with a plan to remove the necessity for an administrator from the rules. Basically I'm in the main removing bits that require vast amounts of tracks by a set individual - this is the same reason I'm against the idea of Ministries and prefer the idea of Duties to take care of matters - anything which mandates a cetain individual to do something is going to result in problems if/when that person goes somewhere. Its better to make it an Open Process and have the relevant duty taken by anyone who wishes to do so.
The bits I have removed are either unused, crufty or both - i'd be very surprised if anyone even remembered the portrait gallery before I proped to repeal it.
Can you at least point out _specific_ problems, not just "We don't need this",or "This can be abused", or "This makes things difficult for Dave", which can be dealt with in ways besides Desert Twistering the rules?
In most cases these are legacy code that doesn't do much besides take a lot of working out. The were nice, they are still in the database as history, which is their rightful place. Time to do something new.
But I really don't understand the opposition to r1637. Not only is itimportant philosophically to emancipate ourselves like that, it's important practically, since a game rule may at some time conflict with some nationalor international law, and it's very important to make clear that the game rules are the only ones that apply. Further, some game action unspecified in the rules may conflict, so it's not enough just to have the Ruleset take precedence - we need to remove other legal systems from existence, or we will be having to deal with all of them in CFIs or such.
I don't think it has any effect at all. Rule 10 provides all the possible ruling that could be necessary to make our rules override national or international laws
Zarpint On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Daniel Lepage wrote:On Jan 16, 2004, at 11:12 PM, SkArcher wrote: > 1637 This should have been destroyed long ago.
--_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss