Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] RainbowWolfe submits p7

[Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

I suppose it's meant to do the Congess thing if the rule only affects
one section. If it's a global change then I agree that it's easier to
make it at the source and re-write the rule.I agree I'm not explaining
this too well, I'm having trouble keeping it simple. :)

Rule 0 is put any changes in the rules that affect only that one
section, that way players would be able to find them and delete them
if the rule was repealed.

I suppose I could propose that we could always create Rule 0 and list
any other rules that were amended for that section. That way if that
section was to be deleted it would make keeping the rules tidy much
easier (which is my actual purpose) - it would give players a
reference on what rules may need changing / deleting.

RW

On 4/18/05, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 12.54 PM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > {{
> > _Tidy Rules_
> >
> > If an amendment has a local affect(s), it is to be made in the rule or
> > section to which it refers. If the rule section doesn't already have
> > one, a 'Rule 0' may be created for the purposes of making such an
> > amendment.
> > }}
> 
> I still don't quite understand. An amendment is just any change to the
> rules - we don't really keep track of them the way, say, Congress does.
> So what this seems to say is that an amendment which changes a rule in
> a given section must change the rule in that section, which is
> trivially true.
> 
> I think maybe you're imagining amendments the way Congress or other
> major legal bodies do them, where the amendment is just a body of text
> rephrasing the law, and the "ruleset" thus contains all past versions
> of all laws, just with newer blocks superseding older ones. We haven't
> been tracking amendments the same way - we just have the Ruleset
> containing the current versions of all Rules, and any change to a rule
> simply replaces it with the newer version. We could do it the other
> way, and it makes more sense for important things like legal codes, but
> when it's just the rules to a game I think they're easier to read if
> you just have to look at the current rules.
> 
> Or I could be completely misinterpreting your proposal. What would a
> "rule 0" be used for?
> 
> --
> Wonko
> 
>  It is disconcerting to reflect on the number of students we have
> flunked in chemistry for not knowing what we later found to be untrue.
> 
>   --quoted in Robert L. Weber, Science With a Smile (1992)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss