[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Proposal: Don't stop for displays

[athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 12:21:37PM -0400, Daniel Peter Lepage wrote:
> I propose:
> {{
> 
> _``_Nuh-uh_``_
> 
> Remove the text ", or some Player points out that some public display is not up to date," from rule 1586.
> 
> }}
> 
> At the moment we have a number of outdated displays that may or may not be considered "public displays"; but some of them can't be adequately updated right now. The only way to make them come up-to-date is to set the gamestate to something via proposal, and then make the display reflect that. With this clause in the rules, that becomes impossible - we can't propose to fix the displays unless the displays are already fixed. Bad Thing.

If some of them can't be adequately updated now, what you describe is not the
only way - for instance, we could declare an SOE, and use a Refresh Prop.

I think it makes sense to call an SOE if not all the game information to
Players is available or can be made available, rather than proceeding
blindly. It doesn't make sense to vote without the Philosophies
available.

The Philosophies can be made available, by searching the list archives if
necessary. Note that this is my job:

C.7. Ministry of the Roster:

The Roster must also contain a list of other game entities and all
information about them that isn't publicly visible elsewhere. 



> 
> I also propose:
> {{
> 
> _``_Clearing the state as well_``_
> 
> Destroy all points. Set each player's Charm, Activity, and Style to 1.
> 
> Destroy all things that were once Game Objects (and not outsiders - no destroying former players) but are not anymore. (I still maintain that this will do nothing, as they don't exist anyway, but what the hell.)

Wonko, I'm not saying that they exist according to my personal
metaphysics. I'm saying they Exist as Game Objects still, like they did
in the examples Glotmorf mentioned.

I say this because they were at one time sanctioned by the Ruleset, and
haven't ever been deleted. It's not clear to me that objects become
un-sanctioned when the rule is removed, though that would be nice.

How about "Destroy all things that are not specifically mentioned in the
Ruleset as existing"? I don't think this task is ever performed unless
explicitly stated.

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