Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [s-d]Roster Stuff

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 Jul 2004 at 10:55, athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:31:56AM -0400, Daniel Peter Lepage wrote: >
> Zarpint wrote: > > > You don't actually delete the fund and other game
> objects, just the > > rules that declare their existence. They
> probably still have some sort > > of nebulous existence. > > I thought
> we'd had a CFI about such things, but I can't find it in the archive.
> We did discuss it at one point, though, and I believe we reached the
> conclusion that once an object ceases to be defined by the rules it
> ceases to exist for all intents and purposes. Specifically, the text
> of r13 makes it clear that to be a Game Object, a thing must be
> described by the rules, so repealing the defining rule causes a thing
> to cease to be a Game Object.
> 
> Not so clear to me. The object existed at one point. At no point was
> it ever destroyed, though the Rules mentioning it were repealed. There
> have been proposals that specifically deleted objects after repealing
> the rules, suggesting that deleting the rule doesn't delete the
> object. I'm not sure that it is no longer a Game Object.

There have been instances of "legacy" objects -- objects that 
existed long enough to get into players' possession, which 
meant they were part of the gamestate, and therefore, by 
Dave's interpretation, didn't go away just because the rule 
did.  There was also an instance of something existing 
according to one version of a rule, the rule changing, and it 
being decided that the objects still belonged to the old rule 
rather than the new rule -- Wonko's "Stock Scam".

						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