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

[Araltaln <smgafkjen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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 At the moment we have a number of outdated displays that may or may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.

Well, touch BodyOfPhilosophy on the Wiki, then, and make it official.

> > 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.

I have Issues with this statement, on the grounds that I really really 
don't want to need the full list of rules that ever were and every 
revision of them just to be able to interpret the game state. If I can't 
look at the Ruleset, see that, for instance, Snugglebunnies are not 
defined (either in the Ruleset itself or by reference to an external 
document), and thus figure out that they are not sanctioned by the 
Ruleset, my head will explode. And that'll be messy. We don't want that.

> 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.

While that's an amazingly bad way to word it, the general idea couldn't 
hurt.

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