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

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 Jul 2004 at 11:41, Daniel Peter Lepage wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> > Date: Fri Jul 16 11:25:47 EDT 2004
> > From: "Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [s-d]Roster Stuff
> > To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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 repealed.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".
> 
> I thought I lost that suit... the "Stock Scam" was when I bought a
> billion shares of somebody's stock (Mithrandir, I think) for free
> because e had no points and then sold them back at two BNS apiece
> after giving em 11 points. 

Fairly sure you kept em.  Surrendered them shortly thereafter, 
I think, but that's another matter.  I think there was a 
revamping proposal that destroyed all existing BNS.

						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