Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] BvS submits p28

[Alex Truelsen <dichotomousmind@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/27/05, Jimmy Kaplowitz <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:56:54PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> > I don't know that one, but since a Party is nothing more than a group of
> > people trying to uphold the words on some piece of paper somewhere, I 
> don't
> > think there's too much one can do with that. That is, a Party's rules 
> don't
> > have any bearing on the rest of the Game, because they're not in the
> > ruleset. If it would make people feel better, I can always make that
> > explicit. Would that help?
> 
> Yes. As written, someone could define an rule as part of the "internal
> workings of a Party" that tries to affect the Gamestate. Then, unless a
> CFI contrains the definition of "internal workings" (I can think of why
> such a CFI might fail), no Rule could attempt to change this, and that
> paragraph of your proposal would enforce that (until changed if such a
> change is possible).


Clearly I've been out for too long. You people think around some nasty 
corners... all right, change forthcoming when I can.

Also, I imagine there will eventually be enough Rules governing
> Political Parties that it should go in its own section, not Generic
> Definitions. This Definition also seems quite non-Generic. In any case,
> if it does go in Generic Definitions, you should change that if the
> Generic Definitions proposal doesn't pass.


If the time comes, maybe it will be moved, but at the moment I think it's 
pretty much a self-contained system and can continue to be for some time. I 
mean, there's not too much more to say about them, and if you wanted to 
fiddle with Parties by, say, doing something with Souls, you'd put that in 
"All Things Mystical," or if votes were counted differently based on Party 
membership, you'd put that in "Gameplay." They're in the perfect place right 
now because rules that reference them could go anywhere. That's the reason 
to put anything in Generic Defintions. Also, Generic Definitions won't pass, 
so the Party proposal creates it. No loose ends, unless GD gets through 
somehow, and then I just alter this prop a tad.

[[BvS]]

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
> bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> 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