Re: [spoon-discuss] Straw Poll on the Government Turnover

[Zarpint <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 28 May 2004, Daniel Lepage wrote:

>
> On May 28, 2004, at 12.15 AM, Zarpint wrote:
> > I don't understand how this is just an implementation detail. In 1,
> > I can do any of the tasks in any of the Ministries. In 2, I can only
> > do the tasks I am responsible for as a Minister. If you're saying I
> > can at any point borrow any Ministry, do the task, and return it,
> > then we have 1 with a lot of excess stuff.
>
> Well, what do you mean by "I can do any of the tasks in any of the
> Ministries"? If you mean, "I can do any of the tasks even if it was
> supposed to be done yesterday, I only just decided to do it, and
> somebody else has already done it", then you're right, the Ministries
> system is significantly different. And also much better.

Scratch "somebody else has already done it", and that's what I mean.

>
> What I'm getting at is a system to ensure that we don't have multiple
> people trying to fill a given ministry at random. And yes, that does
> mean that you won't always be allowed to do any task. You can do any
> task *provided that somebody else isn't already doing it*.

Specific example:

Task Foo is done by the Ministry of Bar. It was supposed to be done at
the beginning of nday 3.

It is now sometime after midnight UTC, and Foo has not been done. If I
am not at all associated with the Ministry of Bar, may I now do the task?

No one is already doing it. Someone is supposed to be doing it, but e might
do it in an hour or e might never do it.

If the answer is "Yes, I may do it", then we have Open Source. And we may
have multiple people trying to fill in randomly, so to prevent that, we
should probably have a real-time list where someone can click and say,
"I am now doing this task."

If the answer is "No, I need to wait for someone in the Ministry to do it,
or call a Vote of No-Confidence after X ndays", then we have Ministries.
>
> >> The Primary Ruleset Officer (AKA the PRO, or Bono):
> >> <snip>
> >
> > Do we then have a "Call for Bono" where a Player requests Bono make a
> > decision, which can be appealled to a CFI? Or does Bono have to
> > recognize
> > everything the Admin formerly did?
>
> I suppose a "call for bono" would be best. The analogy in the current
> game is simply taking the action, because Dave's required to recognize
> every action. This amounts to calling Bono perpetually.

So Bono has to report every time someone takes an action, like Dave did,
and there's no need to explicitly say "I call Bono"?

Zarpint


-- 
Zarpint Jeremy Cook    "All thy toiling only breeds new dreams, new dreams;
mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx         there is no truth saving in thine own heart."
dynamicwind.com               --W.B. Yeats, The Song of the Happy Shepherd
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss