Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 62 BALLOT (the real one)

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 May 2004 at 0:25, Bill Adlam wrote:

> > > Proposal 1846/0: Player Is Created Free, But Everywhere E Is
> > >                  In Chains (Sagitta)
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > I must have missed the previous discussion cited in the 
> > proposal.  It is not true that the last sentence of r1732.E 
> > disenfranchises the first sentence; the first sentence serves 
> > as a default case, much like the rule of the same name.  It 
> > therefore has power to settle disputes if there is no other 
> > rule that does so.
> 
> True, but it only has an effect on the game where the default case
> doesn't apply.  (And that reminds me of something else that needs
> fixing...)
> 
> It wasn't much of a discussion, but after proposing it back in nweek
> 54 I said it didn't do anything, and Wonko agreed.  You were the one
> who objected to section E, actually, so I'd have expected you to be in
> favour of removing it.

It's my inner curmudgeon showing through...resistance to 
change without good reason.  Unfortunately I haven't paid 
enough attention for months to be able to discern change that 
badly needs it from change for its own sake with 100% 
accuracy.

> > As for the second change, I'd rather not have the potential 
> > loophole or ambiguity of modifiability of things in possession of a
> > player in posession of another player.  If one is going to allow for
> > player possession at all, one must make explicit whether possessing
> > a player also means possessing everything that player possesses.
> 
> I thought we had a rule somewhere that stated that no more than one
> player could own the same object.  I can't find it, maybe it's been
> bathwatered.  Or maybe it was something I proposed that failed.  Or,
> having looked back a bit through the archives, I think it must be a
> false memory.  But we should have something like that.

Entity.  No more than one entity should own an object.  That 
allows players to collective own things via societies.

But that wasn't quite my point.  If A owns B and B owns C, is 
ownership by B distinct from ownership of B?  Or does  
ownership of B revert B to container status, much like the 
long-lost Gnome Bag?

						Glotmorf
-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/imt

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